Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-13500

Proposed Rule2023-13500

Expanding Use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other Expanded Use

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 10, 2023

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on various proposed means for transitioning some or all of the 550 megahertz between 12.7-13.25 GHz (the 12.7 GHz band) to mobile broadband and other expanded use, as well as on alternative changes to the Commission's rules that could promote use of the band on a shared basis.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43938-43975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13500]

[[Page 43937]]

Vol. 88

Monday,

No. 130

July 10, 2023

Part V

Federal Communications Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

47 CFR Part 1, 2 et al.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Expanding Use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other
Expanded Use; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 43938]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 27, 74, 78, and 101

[GN Docket No. 22-352; FCC 23-36; FR ID 148292]

Expanding Use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or
Other Expanded Use

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on various proposed means for
transitioning some or all of the 550 megahertz between 12.7-13.25 GHz
(the 12.7 GHz band) to mobile broadband and other expanded use, as well
as on alternative changes to the Commission's rules that could promote
use of the band on a shared basis.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 9, 2023; reply comments are
due on or before September 8, 2023. Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before September 8, 2023. Written
comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in this
document must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA and must be submitted by the public on or before
August 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules (47 CFR 1.415, 1.419), interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit comments
identified by GN Docket No. 22-352 by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers:
<bullet> Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original
and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mall. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio
recordings), please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#074144443237334761646429606871">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202)
418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Broadband Division, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#335e5257565f525a5d561d5e525a5c41735550501d545c45">[email&#160;protected]</a> or 202-418-1466; Simon Banyai of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#55263c383a3b7b37343b2c343c153336367b323a23">[email&#160;protected]</a> or (202) 418-1443;
or Nick Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e70777d7671727f6d30716c716d5e787d7d30797168">[email&#160;protected]</a> or (202) 418-2099. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information
requirements contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80d0d2c1c0e6e3e3aee7eff6">[email&#160;protected]</a>
or contact Kathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in GN Docket No. 22-352 included in the
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23-36, adopted on May 18, 2023
and released on May 19, 2023. The full text this document is available
at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-36A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-36A1.pdf</a>. The Report
and Order and the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT Docket No.
20-443), and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Order (GN Docket
No. 22-352), i.e., the four FCC actions in FCC 23-36, are published
separately in the Rules and Regulations and the Proposed Rules
sections, as applicable, in this issue of the Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA), requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The Commission seeks comment on potential rule and policy
changes contained in the NPRM, and accordingly, has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA for the NPRM in GN
Docket No. 22-352 is set forth below in this document, and written
public comments are requested. Comments must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the NPRM indicated under the DATES section of this
document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them
as responses to the IRFA. The Commission reminds commenters to file in
the appropriate docket: GN Docket No. 22-352 for the NPRM.
Paperwork Reduction Act: This document may contain proposed
modified information collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission
seeks comment on potential new or revised information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission
adopts any new or revised information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on
the information collection requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks specific comments on how it
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the

[[Page 43939]]

presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Documents shown or given to Commission staff during
ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.

Synopsis

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Record references and citations refer to GN Docket No. 22-
352, unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

1. 12.7-13.25 GHz Band--550 megahertz
1. In the United States, the 12.7 GHz band is allocated on a
primary basis for non-Federal use to Fixed Service (FS), Fixed
Satellite Service (Earth-to-space), and the Mobile Service (MS).\2\ The
band is shared among Fixed Microwave Services (Fixed Service or FS--
part 101), fixed and mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS--part
74), fixed and mobile Cable Television Relay Services (CARS--part 78),
and FSS--part 25.\3\ The 12.75-13.25 GHz band has only limited Federal
use. Specifically, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) operates a receive-only earth station for its Deep Space Network
(DSN) at Goldstone, California, that is authorized to receive
transmissions across the entire 12.75-13.25 GHz band.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 47 CFR 2.106. The international and domestic allocations are
similar for the 12.75-13.25 GHz band in most respects. However,
space-to-Earth transmissions are permitted at 12.7-12.75 GHz in
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Regions 1 and 3 but not
in Region 2. 47 CFR 2.106, International Table. Domestically,
Footnote NG52 of the U.S. Table precludes most GSO FSS systems from
using the band for domestic services and limits the deployment of
FSS earth stations in the band. Id. at n.NG52 (n.NG52 revised as 47
CFR 2.106(d)(52), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7,
2023).
\3\ See 47 CFR part 25 (Sec. Sec. 25.101-25.702), part 74
(Sec. Sec. 74.600-74.690), part 78 (Sec. Sec. 78.1-78.115), part
101 (Sec. Sec. 101.1-101.1527).
\4\ See 47 CFR 2.106 & n.US251 (n.US251 revised as 47 CFR
2.106(c)(251), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7,
2023). See also infra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. On October 28, 2022, the Commission released its 12.7 GHz Notice
of Inquiry (12.7 NOI) to broadly seek information on the current use of
the 12.7 GHz band, how the Commission could encourage more efficient
and intensive use of the band, and whether the band is suitable for
mobile broadband or other expanded use.\5\ In response to the 12.7 NOI,
very few parties have argued that the current balance of incumbents in
the 12.7 GHz band should be left unchanged and that the band should
remain untouched, and a significant number argue that the band should
be used for exclusive, fixed or mobile, flexible high-powered use.
Accordingly, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on various
proposed means for transitioning some or all of the 12.7 GHz band to
mobile broadband and other expanded use. The Commission also seeks
comment on changes to the Commission's rules that could promote
expanded use of the band on a shared basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See In the Matter of Expanding Use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz
Band for Mobile Broadband or Other Expanded Use, GN Docket No. 22-
352, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 22-80, 2022 WL 16634851, at *1, para. 2
(Oct. 28, 2022) (12.7 NOI). In the Order portion of the 12.7 NOI,
the Commission extended a temporary freeze on 12.7 GHz band
applications pending the outcome of GN Docket No. 22-352. Id. at
*14, para. 44. When applicable, the Commission refers to the Order
portion of the 12.7 NOI as the 12.7 Freeze Extension Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Expanded Use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz Band

1. Repurposing for Mobile Broadband or Other Expanded Use
3. In the United States, the 12.7 GHz band is allocated on a
primary basis for non-Federal use to FS, FSS (Earth-to-space), and the
MS.\6\ The band is shared among Fixed Microwave Services (FS--part
101), Broadcast Auxiliary Services (fixed and mobile BAS--part 74),
fixed and mobile Cable Television Relay Services (CARS--part 78), and
Fixed Satellite Services (FSS--part 25).\7\ Based on the Commission's
licensing records, these services in the 12.7 GHz band include
approximately 1,846 terrestrial service call signs that authorize a
total of approximately 2,070 fixed point-to-point paths, and
approximately 400 licenses that authorize mobile TV pickup
operations.\8\ There are also 27 call signs for FSS space stations and
43 call signs for FSS earth stations.\9\ Terrestrial and space services
in the 12.7 GHz band are subject to prior-coordination requirements to
avoid interference.\10\ The 12.7 GHz band has only limited Federal use.
Specifically, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
operates a receive-only earth station for its Deep Space Network (DSN)
at Goldstone, California, that is authorized to receive transmissions
across the entire 12.7 GHz band.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 47 CFR 2.106. The international and domestic allocations are
similar for the 12.75-13.25 GHz band in most respects. However,
space-to-Earth transmissions are permitted at 12.7-12.75 GHz in ITU
Regions 1 and 3 but not in Region 2. 47 CFR 2.106, International
Table. Domestically, Footnote NG52 of the U.S. Table precludes most
GSO FSS systems from using the band for domestic services and limits
the deployment of FSS earth stations in the band. Id. at n.NG52
(n.NG52 revised as 47 CFR 2.106(d)(52), at 88 FR 37318, June 7,
2023, effective July 7, 2023).
\7\ See 47 CFR part 25 (Sec. Sec. 25.101-25.702), part 74
(Sec. Sec. 74.600-74.690), part 78 (Sec. Sec. 78.1-78.115), part
101 (Sec. Sec. 101.1-101.1527).
\8\ Licensing data for fixed and mobile BAS under part 74 and
Fixed Microwave under part 101 is in the Universal Licensing System
(ULS). Licensing data for fixed and mobile CARS is in the Cable
Operations and Licensing System (COALS). These statistics are based
on a review of ULS on April 26, 2023. There are also approximately
65 fixed or mobile CARS call signs in COALS.
\9\ FSS data are in the International Bureau Electronic Filing
System (MyIBFS). These statistics are based on a review of MyIBFS on
April 26, 2023.
\10\ See 47 CFR 25.115(a)(6)(i), 101.21(f). The administrative
aspects of the coordination process are set forth in 47 CFR 101.103
for coordinating terrestrial stations with earth stations, and in 47
CFR 25.203 for coordinating earth stations with terrestrial
stations. See also id. Sec. 25.251(a). The coordination procedures
specified in 47 CFR 101.103 and 25.203 are applicable for
coordinating between earth stations and fixed microwave links, and
the information provided during coordination is set forth in 47 CFR
25.203(c)(2) and 101.103(d)(2)(ii).
\11\ See 47 CFR 2.106 & n.US251 (``The band 12.75-13.25 GHz is
also allocated to the space research (deep space) (space-to-Earth)
service for reception only at Goldstone, CA (35[deg]20' N,
116[deg]53' W).'') (n.US251 revised as 47 CFR 2.106(c)(251), at 88
FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 2023). For additional
details concerning the domestic and international allocations, see
12.7 NOI at *2-*3, paras. 4-6. For additional details on current
uses, see 12.7 NOI at *2-*5, paras. 4-11 (II.B. Current uses of the
12.7-13.25 GHz (12.7 GHz) Band).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Given the existing incumbent uses of the band, the 12.7 NOI
sought comment on two potential options for making some or all of the
band available for mobile broadband and other expanded uses: (1)
repurposing some or all of the band for such use with sunset

[[Page 43940]]

of some or all incumbent services and relocation and cost-sharing
requirements for new services,\12\ and (2) potential sharing methods
among new and incumbent services.\13\ In connection with these
potential options, the 12.7 NOI asked about potential licensing
approaches to facilitate deployment of new mobile broadband or other
expanded use of the band.\14\ The 12.7 NOI also sought comment on an
appropriate protection level that new operations in the 12.7 GHz band
would have to provide incumbent services in the lower and upper
adjacent bands.\15\ The 12.7 NOI also sought comment on the costs and
benefits that should be considered in deciding whether to promote new
service opportunities in the band through repurposing/relocation or
sharing as well as whether the Commission should consider some
combination of these methods.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ See 12.7 NOI at *5, *6-*9,*9-*11, paras. 12, 14-24, 25-30.
\13\ See 12.7 NOI at *6-*9, paras. 14-24 (III.A. Potential
Methods for Sharing the Band), *9-*11, paras. 25-30 (III.B. Sunset
of Incumbent Services, Relocation and Cost-Sharing for New
Services).
\14\ See 12.7 NOI at *11-*12, paras. 31-32 (III.C. Potential
Licensing Approaches, Service and Technical Rules), specifically,
the Commission asked whether to assign new licenses on an exclusive-
use basis, through the issuance of new geographic-area overlay
licenses or consider other licensing approaches, such as non-
exclusive, site-based, or a tiered approach such as that used in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Id. at *11, para. 31.
\15\ See 12.7 NOI at *12-*14, paras. 34 (describing incumbent
services in 12.2-12.7 GHz band), 35-38 (describing incumbent Federal
services in 13.25-13.4 GHz and 13.4-13.75 GHz bands), 39-40
(recognizing the need for services in these adjacent bands to
continue providing service and seeking comment on whether provisions
beyond the existing 12.7 GHz band fixed service protection levels
for adjacent bands would be necessary for mobile broadband or other
expanded-use operations in the 12.7 GHz band to prevent harmful
interference to operations in those adjacent bands).
\16\ See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. In response to the 12.7 NOI, very few parties have argued that
the current balance of incumbents in the 12.7 GHz band should be left
unchanged and that the band should remain untouched. There is
substantial support for repurposing these frequencies for mobile
broadband or other expanded use and a significant number argue that the
band should be used for exclusive, fixed or mobile, flexible high-
powered use.\17\ Commenters assert that the next-generation wireless
technologies underpinning 5G, 5G Advanced, and 6G services will rely
depend on extremely high data rates, and the reliability, low latency,
and capacity that the 12.7 GHz band spectrum can provide.\18\ In
addition, standardization is already underway for 6G, and the 12.7 GHz
band has considerable capacity and opportunity for channel reuse,
making it a good fit for future 6G technologies,\19\ including high-
speed, low-latency, bandwidth-intensive applications, such as augmented
reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), telesurgery, and robotics.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4; Competitive Carriers
Association Reply at 4 (CCA); CTIA Comments at 5; DISH Network Corp.
Comments at 5 (DISH); Ericsson Comments at 10; Nokia Comments at 3;
Qualcomm Comments at 7; T-Mobile USA, Inc. Comments at 3; U.S.
Cellular Corp. Reply at 2 (UScellular); Verizon Comments at 1; 5G
Americas Reply at 5; 5G for 12 GHz Coalition Comments at 3. But see
EIBASS Comments at 1; Ovzon Comments at 1. Several commercial
wireless interests note that more lower mid-band spectrum is needed
and that the 12.7 GHz band should be viewed as a complement to lower
mid-band spectrum--not a replacement. See AT&T Comments at 1;
Ericsson Comments at 9; T-Mobile Comments at 14; 5G Americas Reply
at 6.
\18\ See Ericsson Comments at 5; Qualcomm Comments at 3, 7.
Qualcomm notes that next generation technology advancements such as
active Antenna Systems (AAS) and Giga-MIMO will compensate for
attenuation in such high frequency bands. Qualcomm Comments at 5;
see also Nokia Comments at 2-3.
\19\ Ericsson Comments at 6, 8.
\20\ Consumer Technology Association Comments at 2 (CTA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to repurpose some or all of
the 12.7 GHz band for mobile broadband and other expanded uses and
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on the
economic benefits of introducing mobile broadband or other expanded use
in all or part of the 12.7 GHz band. Commenters should consider the
economic value of current and future use cases for each type of use,
including benefits and opportunity costs to consumers and the Nation's
economy overall, as well as to unserved or underserved areas and
specialized market segments (e.g., education, telemedicine, and
manufacturing). Commenters should also address the benefits of
international harmonization both in terms of devices and network
deployments. In addition, the Commission encourages commenters to
consider the economic impact on consumers and businesses in rural
communities and areas that are unserved or underserved by current
broadband providers, as well as any economic impact on small
businesses.
7. The propagation characteristics of this frequency range will
require operators to transmit at relatively high power to achieve
meaningful coverage and capacity.\21\ Parties that support mobile
broadband use of the band argue that sharing regimes premised upon
relatively low power operations would not provide the coverage needed
to make investment worthwhile.\22\ Nokia argues that fixed paths--both
BAS/CARS, Fixed Microwave Services and Common Carrier and Operational
Fixed Services (OFS)--are concentrated in major cities along the coasts
and that allowing these operations to remain in the band would
discourage investment in mobile broadband expansion in areas that would
most benefit from it.\23\ Similar to fixed point-to-point links,
current mobile use of the band is limited to BAS/CARS television pickup
services generally licensed to operate ``over an area defined by a
point-radius or other wide-area basis,'' including large, densely-
populated areas with higher spectrum-use demands.\24\ Accordingly,
parties favoring mobile deployment in the band opposed sharing with
these incumbent systems.\25\ Some note that sharing should be used in
situations where clearing the band is not possible, which is not the
case in the 12.7 GHz band, where coordination, repacking and relocation
are available.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ CTIA Comments at 9; Rural Wireless Association, Inc.
Comments at 2-3 (RWA); Verizon Comments at 9; T-Mobile Reply at 4.
\22\ Ericsson states that sharing methods based on dynamic
sharing are not likely to optimize usage of the spectrum, and
instead ``will result in lower power levels, uncertainty regarding
access to the band, and limited investment and utility.'' Ericsson
Comments at 10. 5G Americas also argues that the Commission should
relocate incumbents instead of creating a low-power sharing regime.
5G Americas Comments at 4-5.
\23\ Nokia Comments at 4.
\24\ Nokia Comments at 5.
\25\ See, e.g., Nokia Comments at 4-5.
\26\ T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6-7; Verizon Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. The record, as well as the Commission's experience with other
bands, reflects that this proposed repurposing will enable next-
generation mobile and fixed broadband services in the 12.7 GHz band.
AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Federated Wireless, Nokia, CTIA, Celona, 5G
for 12 GHz Coalition, 5G Americas, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, CCA, and
DISH, all support bringing terrestrial mobile wireless services into
the 12.7 GHz band.\27\ Based on the Commission's well established
success in repurposing other bands for new services, such as Personal
Communications Service (PCS) and Advanced Wireless Services (AWS),
using exclusively assigned geographic-

[[Page 43941]]

area licenses,\28\ the Commission agrees with commenters that assigning
exclusive licenses is most likely to foster the innovation necessary
for an equipment ecosystem to develop in the band and best facilitate
the relocation and repacking of incumbents, which in turn will
accelerate deployment of mobile broadband and other expanded services
in the band.\29\ The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The
Commission also discusses below and seeks comment on whether limited
sharing in the band among different types of services is possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See AT&T Comments at 3-4; CTA Comments at 2; CTIA Comments
at 1, 6; DISH Comments at 1; Dynamic Spectrum Alliance Comments at
1-2 (DSA); Ericsson Comments at 1, 8; Federated Wireless Comments at
1; NCTA Comments at 1; Nokia Comments at 2-3; OneWeb Comments at 1;
Qualcomm Inc. Comments at 6 (Qualcomm); T-Mobile Comments at 1;
Verizon Comments at 1; 5G for 12 GHz Coalition Comments at 2-3; CCA
Reply at 2; Celona Reply at 2-3; US Cellular Reply at 2; 5G Americas
Reply at 4-5.
\28\ See e.g., infra note 52 and accompanying text; accord
Spectrum Frontiers 1st R&O and FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8027-28, paras.
29-30, 8045-46, paras. 78-79.
\29\ Indeed, the majority of the interests that advocate for
expanded fixed or mobile uses argue against sharing in the band and
for repacking or relocation of incumbents. See, e.g., CTIA Comments
at 1,7; Ericsson Comments at 11; Nokia Comments at 4-6; Qualcomm
Comments at 7; T-Mobile Comments at 10-12. 5G Americas states that
``the Commission should relocate incumbents to the greatest extent
possible rather than apply a low-power sharing regime'' and that
``[r]elocation expenses should be reimbursed from the pool of
auctions proceeds for relocation pursuant to a concrete deadline and
should be shared by all new 12.7 GHz entrants, on a pro rata
share.'' See 5G Americas Reply Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. The National Association of Broadcasters and the Society of
Broadcast Engineers assert the 12.7 GHz band is generally not favored
by BAS for long-distance high reliability links; however, both assert
it is necessary for short distance links when no other frequencies are
available due to congestion of the 2 GHz and 6 GHz bands.\30\
Accordingly, although broadcaster commenters oppose relocation of
mobile BAS to other frequency bands, repacking to a discrete portion of
the 12.7 GHz band remains not only possible, but a favorable outcome
according to broadcasters, provided they are reimbursed and are
adequately protected.\31\ The Commission therefore proposes to repack
mobile BAS/CARS incumbents to a portion of the 12.7 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ National Association of Broadcasters Comments at 3 (NAB);
Society of Broadcast Engineers Comments at 2-3 (SBE).
\31\ NAB Comments at 2; NAB Reply at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. The Commission acknowledges that some satellite industry
commenters do not support opening the 12.7 GHz band to terrestrial
mobile use and would instead prefer rule changes to intensify satellite
use of the band in the United States.\32\ Other satellite companies,
however, support examining whether the band can be opened to mobile or
other expanded terrestrial use, but they also note their concern that
the Commission take steps to ensure that services in adjacent bands are
not impacted by out-of-band emissions below 12.7 GHz.\33\ Furthermore,
as T-Mobile notes, satellite operators themselves recognize that there
has been limited use of the 12.7 GHz band in the U.S. for satellite
operations, which makes use of the band for mobile wireless operations
feasible.\34\ As noted by Nokia, ``of the total number of GSO
satellites, only eight of the 23 space stations are in the arc of
132.85 WL to 30 WL,'' and ``[r]egarding non-GSO satellites, the one
operational system does not have any U.S. earth stations licensed in
this band, another system is not operational, and a third has
surrendered the Ku-band portion of the grant.'' \35\ Therefore,
according to Nokia, ``the sharing of the band with satellite service
mostly refers to sharing with GSO FSS in the uplink direction (Earth-
to-space),'' and ``[w]hile more detailed analysis taking into account
the characteristics of both systems would be more conclusive, it is
expected that the mobile broadband service can share the band with
[existing] GSO FSS uplink with no restrictive conditions.'' \36\ The
Commission seeks comment on its proposal that satellite systems in the
band be conserved in their current state with no further expansion in
FSS use in the band.\37\ The Commission also seeks comment on the best
method for mobile and fixed systems to share with these remaining
satellite systems, while ensuring against harmful interference to such
satellite incumbents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Eutelsat Comments at 2-3, 5-6; Intelsat/SES May 12, 2023 Ex
Parte at 2, B-1 (noting that FSS ability to operate in 12.7 GHz band
is constrained by footnote NG52 of the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations limiting use of the band to international systems);
Intelsat License LLC and SES Americom, Inc. Comments at 2; Hispasat
Reply at 3-4 (arguing that relocating incumbent FSS services out of
the 12.7 GHz band, as suggested by certain commenters, is not a
viable option because satellite operators have made significant
long-term investments, considering the 15-20-year lifespan of a GSO
satellite, in reliance on existing frequency allocations).
\33\ Kepler Communications Inc. Comments at 2-3 (Kepler); Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC Comments at 3 (SpaceX); WorldVu Satellites
Limited Comments at 4 (OneWeb).
\34\ See T-Mobile Reply at 9 (citing Eutelsat Comments at 6,
OneWeb Comments at 2-3). T-Mobile adds that given the restriction on
satellite use of the 12.7 GHz band due to NG52 which restricts the
majority of the 12.7 GHz band in the U.S. to international systems,
it would be unreasonable for satellite operators to claim a reliance
interest in expanded use of the band for satellite operations. T-
Mobile Reply at 9.
\35\ Nokia Comments at 6 citing 12.7 NOI at para. 11.
\36\ Nokia Comments at 6.
\37\ The Commission's proposal would not preclude the
possibility of a new U.S.-licensed satellite that would have no
visibility into the United States, as defined in the Communications
Act, i.e., states, territories, and possessions. 47 U.S.C. 153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Future Licensing of Incumbent Services
11. Effective September 19, 2022, the International, Public Safety
and Homeland Security, Media, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus
announced a 180-day freeze on the filing of new or modification
applications for licenses or other authorizations in the 12.7 GHz
band.\38\ The purpose of this temporary freeze was to preserve the
current landscape of authorized operations in the 12.7 GHz band pending
the Commission's consideration of actions in this proceeding.\39\ In
light of the 12.7 NOI, the Commission extended the freeze pending the
outcome of GN Docket No. 22-352.\40\ Because the Commission proposes to
transition most of the band to exclusively assigned geographic-area
licenses for mobile broadband and other expanded uses, it proposes to
revise its rules to, in essence, make the freeze permanent.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes rule revisions to dismiss any new
space station license applications and new requests for access to the
U.S. market through non-U.S.-licensed space stations, or those parts of
any such applications and requests, that seeks to operate in the 12.7
GHz band. This would not apply to new applications for space stations
limited to serving earth stations outside the United States,
applications for modification of existing space station
authorizations,\41\ relocations of existing space stations pursuant to
the Commission's fleet management policy,\42\ or to applications for
replacement space stations.\43\ The Commission proposes rule revisions
to dismiss applications, or those portions of applications, received
for new earth station licenses, and modifications to earth stations
currently authorized, to operate in the 12.7 GHz band. This

[[Page 43942]]

would not apply to applications for renewal or cancellation of current
earth station authorizations,\44\ or modifications to correct location
or other data required in the earth station file.\45\ The Commission
also proposes rule revisions to dismiss applications received for new
or major modifications to fixed microwave, fixed or mobile BAS and CARS
stations to operate in the 12.7 GHz band. This change does not extend
to applications for renewal, cancellation or applications to modify
incumbent mobile BAS/CARS licenses to the mobile BAS/CARS repack band.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ 180-Day Freeze on Applications for New or Modified
Authorizations for the 12.7-13.25 GHz Band, Public Notice, DA 22-
974, 2022 WL 4358635, at *1 (IB/PSHSB/MB/WTB Sept. 19, 2022).
\39\ Id. The Bureaus noted that the Commission or the Bureaus
might extend the freeze if doing so is deemed necessary to avoid
undermining the purpose of the freeze. Id.
\40\ See 12.7 Freeze Extension Order, FCC 22-80, at para. 44
(Commission extended freeze pending the outcome of GN Docket No. 22-
352).
\41\ 47 CFR 25.117.
\42\ 47 CFR 25.118(e) (permitting the relocation of a GSO space
station without prior authorization, but upon 30 days prior notice
to the Commission and any potentially affected licensed spectrum
user, provided that the operator meets specific requirements,
including a requirement that the space station will be relocated to
a position within <plus-minus>0.15[deg] of an orbital location
assigned to the same licensee).
\43\ 47 CFR 25.158(a)(2), 25.165(e)(1), (2).
\44\ 47 CFR 25.121(e).
\45\ See generally International Bureau Addresses Accuracy of
Earth Station Location Information in IBFS, Public Notice, 32 FCC
Rcd 9512 (IB 2017); 47 CFR 25.117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Transition of Incumbent Operations
12. In the 12.7 NOI, the Commission inquired whether any incumbent
services in this band should be sunset,\46\ with existing operations
relocated from all or part of the band and whether new exclusive,
geographic-area-licenses should be required to protect or relocate
incumbent operations before the sunset date.\47\ The Commission
inquired whether the Emerging Technologies (ET) framework could be
applied to relocation of incumbents from this band and whether the
relocation procedures need to differ for one or more incumbent
uses.\48\ While the Commission proposes that FSS incumbents would not
be subject to relocation or sunset, the Commission proposes to apply
its ET procedures to relocate or repack incumbent terrestrial licensees
to introduce new services into a frequency band populated by incumbent
licensees. ET procedures represent a broad set of tools that the
Commission uses, revises, and updates to aid the process of making
spectrum available for new uses. Pursuant to these procedures, the
Commission will set a ``sunset date'' for the terrestrial incumbents in
this band--a date after which these licensees may not cause harmful
interference to new band entrants.\49\ Prior to the sunset date, the
new entrants may not cause harmful interference to terrestrial
incumbents but will be allowed to enter into mandatory negotiations
with these incumbents to gain early entry into the band and, if
necessary, may relocate these terrestrial incumbents to comparable
facilities.\50\ Because new entrants may have to relocate some of these
incumbents from a larger frequency range or greater geographic area
than where the new entrants will operate, the Commission may establish
a companion set of cost-sharing procedures.\51\ The Commission seeks
comment on these proposals and asks commenters addressing them to
outline how they would apply the ET framework to this band as discussed
further below for each type of terrestrial incumbent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The sunset is the date by which all incumbent operations
cease to be protected from interference by new entrants. See, e.g.,
47 CFR 27.1253(a), 101.79(a).
\47\ 12.7 NOI at *9-*10, paras. 25-26.
\48\ 12.7 NOI at *10, para. 26; see, e.g., Amendment of Part 2
of the Commission's Rules (47 CFR part 2) to Allocate Spectrum Below
3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of
New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless
Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Ninth Report and Order and Order, 21
FCC Rcd 4473, 4484, para. 19 (2006) (requiring new entrants to
relocate incumbents system-by-system rather than link-by-link due to
the unique operations of incumbents' systems); Expanding Flexible
Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18122, Report and
Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2416,
para. 182 (2020) (3.7 GHz Band Report and Order). Some transitions
were based on rules that called for negotiations when an ET licensee
proposed to operate a base station before the sunset date that would
interfere with an incumbent's operation. See, e.g., 47 CFR 101.69-
101.81. Other transitions had relatively short sunset dates. See,
e.g., 47 CFR 101.83-101.97. In the Broadcast Incentive Auction
Transition and for the 3.7-4.2 GHz (3.7 GHz band) Transition, the
Commission established cost catalogs for relocation expenses. See
Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, 29 FCC Rcd 6567,
6820, para. 619 (2014) (delegating authority to the Media Bureau
``to . . . develop a final Catalog of Eligible Expenses, and make
other determinations regarding eligible costs and the reimbursement
process.''); see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks
Comment on Preliminary Cost Category Schedule for 3.7-4.2 GHz Band
Relocation Expenses, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 4440 (WTB May 2020).
The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Commission's authority to require
new entrants to relocate incumbent systems to comparable facilities.
See, e.g., Teledesic LLC v. FCC, 275 F.3d 75, 84-87 (D.C. Cir.
2001); see also Ass'n of Public-Safety Commc'ns Officials-Int'l,
Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding
elimination of an exemption for public safety incumbents from a
relocation regime in which new licensees would pay all costs
associated with relocating incumbents to comparable facilities).
\49\ The sunset is the date by which all incumbent operations
cease to be protected from interference by new entrants. See, e.g.,
47 CFR 27.1253(a), 101.79(a). See infra Proposed Rules in GN Docket
No. 22-352, Sec. 27.1712. Regarding protection of incumbent
microwave systems prior to sunset and the trigger for relocation,
the Commission seeks comments on whether the references in Sec.
24.237(a) to TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10-F,
``Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems,'' May 1994, (TSB10-
F), and Appendix I of Subpart E of Part 24--A Procedure for
Calculating PCS Signal Levels at Microwave Receivers), and Sec.
24.237(d) Table 3 (Coordination Distance in Kilometers) need to be
updated or adjusted to account for use in the 12.7 GHz band.
\50\ See, e.g., Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz
Band, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020) (3.7 GHz Band Report and
Order), aff'd PSSI Global Services v. FCC, 983 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.
2020) (permitting accelerated relocation of incumbent FSS space and
earth stations by new wireless entrants); Improving Public Safety
Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 00-55, Report and
Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order,
and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004) (relocation of BAS, CARS, and
LTTS incumbents by new, nationwide wireless entrant); Redevelopment
of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New
Telecommunications Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9, First Report
and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 6886
(1992) (relocation of FS incumbents by new wireless entrants). The
D.C. Circuit has upheld the Commission's authority to require new
entrants to relocate incumbent systems to comparable facilities.
See, e.g., Teledesic LLC v. FCC, 275 F.3d 75, 84-87 (D.C. Cir.
2001); see also Ass'n of Public Safety Communications Officials-
Int'l, Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding
elimination of an exemption for public safety incumbents from a
relocation regime in which new licensees would pay all costs
associated with relocating incumbents to comparable facilities).
\51\ See Amendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan
for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, WT Docket No. 95-157,
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 1923 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Fixed Service
13. Based on its goal of making the 12.7 GHz band available for
advanced communications services, and supported by the record, the
Commission proposes to revise the Commission's rules to make all
incumbent point-to-point operations in the band under parts 74, 78, and
101 secondary to new mobile broadband/expanded use operations on a date
certain. The Commission seeks comment on whether this sunset date
should be three, five, or ten years after the first license for such
new operations is issued in the band. Should the sunset date differ
based on the incumbent service? Fixed microwave incumbents have a long
and successful history of relocation, including clearing the 1850-1990
MHz band for Personal Communications Service (PCS) and the 2110-2200
MHz bands for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) bands.\52\ CTIA argues
that most incumbent services currently operating in the 12.7 GHz band
can be relocated to different media or spectrum bands without any loss
of functionality.\53\ For example, CTIA

[[Page 43943]]

estimates that nearly 80 percent of the BAS licenses in the 12.7 GHz
band are for fixed links that could be moved either to different fixed
microwave service bands or to alternative media such as fiber.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ See CTIA Comments at 7-8 & nn. 20, 21 (citing Amendment of
the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications
Services, GN Docket No. 90-314, Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd
7700 (1993); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to
Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to
Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services,
Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, Second Report and
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-220 MHz Band, Report and
Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16214,
para. 304 (2012)).
\53\ CTIA Comments at 7.
\54\ CTIA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Verizon notes that the 12.7 GHz band ``is home to approximately
1,697 Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) call signs, 15 Cable Television
Relay Service (CARS) licenses, and 224 call signs for part 101 licensed
point-to-point microwave links.'' \55\ Verizon contends that ``[s]uch
technologies, which support public service and public safety among
other functions, could be relocated (and upgraded) consistent with the
Commission's longstanding Emerging Technologies principles.\56\ Nokia
believes that the Commission should relocate the limited number of
fixed links operating in the 12.7 GHz band.\57\ Ericsson states that
the Commission, ``[w]here possible, . . . should explore opportunities
to relocate incumbents'' from the 12.7 GHz band or, in certain
instances, consolidate, segment, and repack certain incumbent users
into a smaller portion of the band.\58\ 5G Americas supports the
relocation of incumbents from the 12.7 GHz band ``to the greatest
extent possible.'' \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ Verizon Comments at 6-7.
\56\ Verizon Comments at 7.
\57\ Nokia Comments at 4. Nokia notes that ``[w]hile the
nationwide number of fixed point-to-point links is limited, BAS
fixed links (1,172 fixed paths) are concentrated in major cities
along the coasts'' and ``[o]ther licensed fixed service links, such
as Common Carrier and Operational Fixed Services (OFS) are
concentrated in the West Coast cities and states.'' Id. Nokia
recommends that the Commission relocate such services to other fixed
microwave bands. Id.
\58\ Ericsson Comments 11.
\59\ 5G Americas Reply Comments 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. The record reflects a strong consensus among parties that the
Commission utilizes its Emerging Technologies policies to transition
and sunset all incumbent point-to-point licenses in the band under
parts 74, 78, and 101.\60\ The Commission agrees that doing so will
appropriately balance the operational needs of incumbents with the
public interest benefits of expanded use of the spectrum. The
transition of fixed links is relatively straightforward and entails the
relocation of independent fixed point-to-point microwave links which
can proceed link-by-link basis consistent with its Emerging Technology
policies. The Commission therefore proposes to apply Sec. Sec. 101.69,
101.73, and 101.75 and amend Sec. Sec. 74.690 and 78.40 to govern
relocation of incumbent fixed services from this band.\61\ The
Commission further proposes that, three, five, or ten years after the
first mobile broadband/expanded use license is issued in the band,
incumbent point-to-point licenses in the band would become secondary
(operate on an unprotected, non-interference basis) to new licensed
operations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal including the
appropriate sunset period for point-to-point licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at 6-7; Nokia
Comments at 3-5; T-Mobile Comments at 3-4; Competitive Carriers
Association Reply Comments at 3; 5G Americas Reply Comments at 6-7.
But see Celona Inc. Comments at 1-2 (noting that ``Celona does not
advocate sunsetting or relocating incumbent users, but instead
supports coexisting with the incumbents through a DSMS model.'').
\61\ See infra Proposed Rules in GN Docket No. 22-352, 47 CFR
74.690, 78.40, 101.69, 101.173, 101.75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Mobile BAS/CARS
16. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to repack
incumbent mobile BAS/CARS licensees into a portion of the 12.7 GHz band
to be designated for mobile BAS/CARS operations. The 12.7 GHz band has
approximately 450 BAS and CARS call signs that authorize land mobile
television pickup stations. These are effectively mobile news gathering
technologies that operate over an area defined by a point-radius or
other wide-area basis, making them the most likely to potentially
interfere with or receive interference from any new mobile broadband
co-channel entrants. While these land mobile pickup transmitter
licensees coordinate with each other and share the spectrum among
multiple licensees in any given area,\62\ coordination among these
incumbents and new mobile broadband or other expanded use operations is
infeasible given that the former need to operate temporary fixed links
or mobile transmitters anywhere in their market, often on short notice,
and that the latter will be ubiquitous. For this reason, the Commission
asked in the 12.7 NOI if mobile BAS/CARS operations could be relocated
to a portion of the band or else to a different band or technology.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ See infra Proposed Rules in GN Docket No. 22-352, 47 CFR
part 74 (Sec. Sec. 74.600-74.690), part 78 (Sec. Sec. 78.1-
78.115).
\63\ 12.7 NOI at *14, para. 28. Ericson recognizes that mobile
TV operations ``could make sharing the 12.7 GHz band with new
terrestrial mobile broadband services more challenging'' and that
``[o]pportunities to relocate incumbents or consolidate and segment
the band should be prioritized,'' such as ``repack[ing] certain
existing uses into a smaller portion of the band.'' Ericsson
Comments at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Given the varied and widespread nature of mobile BAS (403 call
signs) and mobile CARS (50 call signs) operations, Verizon encourages
the Commission to propose relocating these operations from the
band.\64\ Nokia also urges relocation of mobile BAS/CARS operations
because transmitters in the television pickup service are often
licensed to operate over an area defined by a point-radius or other
wide-area basis and across the entire frequency band, with large
operating areas that include major cities.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ Verizon Comments at 7.
\65\ Nokia Comments at 5. Nokia contends that ``mechanisms to
enable coexistence with mobile incumbents are usually more complex
than in case of fixed incumbents.'' Id. It also notes that
``[r]estrictions on the mobile broadband deployments in such areas
to allow sharing with mobile incumbents would decrease the value of
the band.'' Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. Significantly, NAB and Scripps Broadcasting recognize that it
may be possible to repack broadcaster operations in the 12.7 GHz band
into a smaller segment of the band, assuming the Commission adopts
rules that will fully protect those broadcaster operations from harmful
interference caused by new entrants and ensure that broadcaster do not
bear any costs associated with relocation.\66\ SBE cautions that the
relocation of mobile BAS and other incumbent broadcast operations would
be impractical and expensive, because (1) there is no ``clear
alternative offering the flexibility necessary for mobile ENG and other
broadcaster operations; and (2) ``even if there were a clear
alternative . . . relocation would ``render broadcasters' incumbent
mobile newsgathering equipment obsolete--resulting in significant costs
to replace and deploy new equipment (for use in other spectrum or
within a newly reserved portion of existing spectrum), and for which
broadcasters' expenses would need to be compensated.'' \67\ As CTIA
observes, in 2000 the Commission adopted rules to repack mostly mobile
BAS/CARS operations, similar to those in the 12.7 GHz band, from the
1990-2110 MHz band to the 2025-2110 MHz band using more spectrally
efficient equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ NAB Comments at 2, 7-8; Scripps Broadcasting Comments at 1,
5. NAB emphasizes that, any relocation of broadcasters' operations
must be fully funded. NAB Reply Comments at 5; see also Scripps
Broadcasting Comments at 5. Broadcasters have made significant
investments in 12.7 GHz operations, and the costs of relocation may
be substantial. NAB Reply at 5. Even frequency changes within the
12.7 GHz band may require antenna replacements that are costly or
impractical. Id.; see also Scripps Broadcasting Reply at 5.
\67\ SBE Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. The Commission proposes to repack mobile BAS/CARS incumbents
into a segment of the 12.7 GHz band to be designated for mobile BAS/
CARS use, and the Commission seeks

[[Page 43944]]

comment on this proposal. The Commission proposes to retain 25
megahertz for mobile BAS/CARS operation and to repack existing
operations into this dedicated band. Is 25 megahertz adequate to
accommodate current mobile BAS/CARS incumbent operations in the 12.7
GHz band? If no, how much spectrum would be required for mobile BAS/
CARS use after repacking? Where within the 12.7 GHz band should these
repacked operations be located? Would locating the repack band at the
top, bottom, or both ends of the 12.7 GHz band more effectively serve
to mitigate potential interference, from new 12.7 GHz band mobile
broadband or other expanded use operations, to operations in adjacent
bands? Are the existing provisions that reserved 13.15-13.2125 GHz for
mobile BAS/CARS inside a 50 km radius of 100 television markets
relevant to this question? \68\ Commenters should discuss advantages
and disadvantages of different repacking options, included economic
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ See 47 CFR 2.106 note NG53, 74.602(a) note 2; 78.18(l)
(note NG53 revised as 47 CFR 2.106(d)(53), at 88 FR 37318, June 7,
2023, effective July 7, 2023). See also Amendment of Part 101 of the
Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Use of Microwave for Wireless
Backhaul and Other Uses and to Provide Additional Flexibility to
Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave
Licensees, Report and Order (76 FR 59559 (Sept. 27, 2011)), Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (76 FR 59614 (Sept. 27, 2011)), and
Memorandum Opinion and Order (76 FR 59559 (Sept. 27, 2011)), 26 FCC
Rcd 11614, 11626 para. 24 (2011) (Commission excluded FS from
13.150-13.200 MHz nationwide because that spectrum was already
reserved for TV pickup operations in 100 markets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. The Commission seeks comment on the typical use of this band by
mobile BAS/CARS incumbent licensees. For example, is this band
typically used by BAS licensees for traditional ENG type operations
from a mobile pickup van or truck back to the studio or central
receiver site? Or is this band used primarily for shorter more
localized transmission from cameras or backpack transmitters to the ENG
truck? Are there other typical uses for mobile transmitters in this
band? Is equipment in this band tunable within the band? Is equipment
in this band capable of scaling bandwidth to different sized channels?
How intensively is this band used in practice by incumbent licensees
for mobile operations compared to other BAS bands such as 2 GHz and 6
GHz? Is equipment currently being manufactured and marketed for mobile
BAS/CARS operation in this band? Can new 12.7 GHz band equipment used
for studio-transmitter links be reconfigured for ENG or other mobile
BAS/CARS uses?
21. The Commission seeks comment on how its Emerging Technologies
procedures should apply to incumbent use of non-fixed or mobile
operations in the band. Whereas the transition of fixed links is
relatively straightforward, in that it entails the relocation of
independent fixed point-to-point microwave links, and can proceed link-
by-link on an as-needed basis, the integrated nature of mobile BAS and
CARS operations makes link-by-link relocation infeasible. It is further
complicated by incumbent use of frequency-agile, non-fixed or mobile
stations.\69\ The Commission has previously required that the BAS and
CARS operations be cleared from transitioning bands on a market-by-
market basis before any new entrant could begin operations.\70\ It may
also be necessary for a new entrant to relocate more non-fixed or
mobile BAS and CARS facilities than an interference analysis might
indicate is technically necessary in order to meet the comparable
facility requirement for relocating non-fixed or mobile BAS or CARS
operations.\71\ Should a new entrant therefore be obligated to relocate
all incumbent non-fixed or mobile BAS and CARS operations in all
affected BAS and CARS markets, including those markets where the new
entrant provides partial, minimal, or even no service? The Commission
seeks comment on its proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ Further, while BAS and CARS mobile operations are licensed
for specific geographic markets, in some cases they operate
nationwide.
\70\ See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile Satellite Service,
ET Docket No. 95-18, Third Report and Order and Third Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23638, 23653-23660 paras. 29-42
(2003); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Sixth Report and
Order, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fifth Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20720, 20746-20753 paras. 57-73 (2004)
(AWS Sixth Report and Order); 47 CFR 74.690(e)(1), 78.40(f)(1).
\71\ Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-
1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263, 19285 para. 52
(2006); 47 CFR 74.690(d), 78.40(d)-(e). For example, operations of
non-fixed or mobile BAS or CARS operations in an adjacent market may
need to be relocated even though the new entrant does not initiate
operations in that adjacent market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Once incumbent mobile BAS/CARS have transitioned into a
repacked band, should the Commission consider whether to allow the
following to operate in some or all of the mobile BAS/CARS repack band:
incumbent fixed point-to-point (PTP) BAS, or all incumbent fixed PTP
(some of which may have tunable equipment) so long as such fixed PTP
links would not intersect with incumbent mobile BAS/CARS authorized
mobile operating areas, and new mobile BAS/CARS operations? \72\ If the
repack band is reserved nationwide for mobile BAS/CARS (limited to
incumbents during a transition period) are there any scenarios in which
the Commission should consider permitting licensed expanded-use
services to operate in portions of the repack band (spectral or
geographical) after the transition period? Could an automated spectrum
management system at a later design date be needed in the mobile BAS/
CARS repack band, or could shared access occur without the use of
database managed sharing systems? \73\ The Commission seeks comment on
these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ See 47 CFR 101.147(a) n.34.
\73\ 47 CFR 96.53-96.66 (Spectrum Access System for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service); id. Sec. Sec. 15.713-15.715 (White space
database); id. Sec. 15.407(k) (Automated Frequency Coordination
(AFC) system for 6 GHz devices). No AFC system operators have yet
been designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Fixed Satellite Service
23. Space stations. As noted in its 12.7 NOI, 27 space stations'
records specify use of the 12.7 GHz band with all 27 specifying
downlink (space-to-Earth) in the 12.7-12.75 GHz band, 20 specifying
uplink (Earth-to-space) in all or a segment of the 12.75-13.25 GHz
band, and four specifying uplink (Earth-to-space) in the 12.7-12.75 GHz
band and in all or a segment of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band.\74\ More
generally, of the total number of GSO satellites, the Commission noted
in the 12.7 NOI that only eight of the 23 space stations are in orbital
locations with good visibility to all or significant portions of
CONUS.\75\ Of the four satellite records associated with three non-
geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems, the Commission noted that the one
operational system does not have any U.S. earth stations licensed in
this band, another system is not operational, and a third has
surrendered the Ku-band portion of the grant.\76\ The Commission is not
proposing to sunset or to require new entrants to relocate FSS
incumbents, which the Commission proposes to define as any FSS space
station or earth station authorized to serve or operate in the United
States in accordance with the Table of Allocations based on an

[[Page 43945]]

application or petition for market access filed before September 19,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.
\75\ Id. (Commission noted that these eight space stations are
in the arc of 132.85 WL to 30 WL.)
\76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. Verizon states, however, that ``the Commission's recent action
to open the band to new [NGSO] satellites has substantially changed the
spectral landscape, despite the goal of the freeze on processing of new
applications in this frequency range.'' \77\ According to Verizon,
``the Commission should seek further comment on how new wireless
operations can coexist with the substantial number of new NGSO FSS
deployments.'' \78\ In addition, Verizon states that ``[t]o the extent
FSS operations are not relocated from the band, the Commission should
seek comment on how it might leverage the prior-coordination
requirements for terrestrial and space services to facilitate
coexistence among operations in the band.'' \79\ The Commission seeks
comment accordingly. The Commission notes, however, that SpaceX
supports the Commission's decision to explore use of the 12.7 GHz band
rather than the 12.2 GHz band for terrestrial mobile broadband and
other expanded use. SpaceX asserts that ``[w]hile [it] is licensed for
both bands, it nonetheless joins the other commenters supporting the
Commission's shift in focus to the upper 12 GHz band.'' \80\ In any
event, SpaceX's ``[o]perations of [NGSO] systems in the 12.75-13.25 GHz
(Earth-to-space) frequency band with earth stations in the United
States are restricted to individually licensed earth stations in
accordance with footnote NG57 to the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations, 47 CFR 2.106, NG57.'' \81\ Additionally, SpaceX's
``authorization is subject to modification to bring it into conformance
with any rules or policies adopted by the Commission in the future.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ Verizon Comments at 8 & n.26 (citing SpaceX Gen2 Order, FCC
22-91, 2022 WL 17413767, at *1 para. 1, *18, para. 42 (authorizing
the construction, deployment, and authorization of up to 7,500
satellites (Earth-to-space) in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band, among other
segments)).
\78\ Id.
\79\ See Verizon Comments at 7-8.
\80\ SpaceX Reply at 1. See also Letter from Kimberly M. Baum,
Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites
Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22-352
et al. at 2 (filed Mar. 20, 2023) (OneWeb March 20, 2023 Ex Parte)
(``OneWeb urged closing out the 12.2-12.7 GHz proceeding and
shifting the Commission's focus to the 12.7-13.25 GHz band which
holds more promise for expanded terrestrial use.'').
\81\ SpaceX Gen2 Order, FCC 22-91 at para. 135(h) (noting that
the licensing of earth stations (i.e. filed after Sept. 19, 2022)
for operations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz will be subject to filing
freeze on applications for new or modified authorizations for the
12.7-13.25 GHz band.).
\82\ SpaceX Gen2 Order, FCC 22-91 at para. 135(hh) (stating that
the ``authorization is subject to modification to bring it into
conformance with any rules or policies adopted by the Commission in
the future. [And, that] . . . any investments made toward operations
in the bands authorized [by the] Order by SpaceX in the United
States assume the risk that operations may be subject to additional
conditions or requirements as a result of any future Commission
actions . . . [including, but not limited to] . . . any conditions
or requirements resulting from any action in the proceedings
associated with . . . GN Docket 22-352 . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. Earth stations. As noted in the 12.7 NOI, 27 locations are
associated with 43 incumbent earth stations.\83\ There are eight earth
station authorizations for ESIM or temporary fixed operations that do
not specify a specific set of geographic coordinates.\84\ Of the 35
remaining earth stations, there are eight instances of co-location with
other earth stations, resulting in the 27 locations.\85\ A majority
(23) of those Earth stations are authorized for uplink transmission
(Earth-to-space) in the 12.7 GHz band.\86\ Additionally, 20 earth
stations are authorized for downlink reception (space-to-Earth) in the
lower 50 megahertz of the band (i.e., 12.7-12.75 GHz), in many
instances together with other frequencies in the lower-adjacent Ku-
band.\87\ The Commission also noted that, for FSS operations, downlink
earth stations are more likely to suffer harmful interference from
terrestrial systems than uplink earth stations (where the victim
receiver is at the space station far from the terrestrial systems).\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.
\84\ Id. An ESIM is operated by remote control from a ground-
based network and monitoring center that is specified in the
authorization. See 47 CFR 25.271. ``Of the 20 earth station
authorizations for uplink [sic] (space-to-Earth) in the 12.7-12.75
GHz band, eight are for Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) and may or
may not involve operations in these frequencies in the United
States.'' 12.7 NOI at n.28 (the 20 earth stations, and therefore the
eight indicated for ESIM have a ``downlink'' designation.).
\85\ See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11. In addition, the Department
of Defense (DoD) leases commercial satellite services in the 12.7-
13.25 GHz band as end users. Id.
\86\ See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.
\87\ See 12.7 NOI at *5, para. 11.
\88\ 12.7 NOI at *10, para. 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. The Commission proposes to grandfather the 23 incumbent earth
stations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band that operate in accordance with
the United States and ITU's band allocation for Region 2 by operating
earth-to-space. No additional earth stations would be authorized in the
12.7 GHz band. The Commission proposes that non-conforming incumbent
Earth stations that operate by receiving in the space-to-Earth
direction in 12.7-12.75 GHz in the United States may continue on a non-
interference basis and have no right to protection from harmful
interference.\89\ The Commission seeks comment on potential
international implications of its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ See Application of Fugro-Chance, Inc., Order and
Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2860, 2860, para. 2 (IB 1995) (stating
that a waiver of Sec. 2.106--the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations--is appropriate ``when there is little potential for
interference into any service authorized under the Table of
Frequency Allocations and when the non-conforming operator accepts
any interference from authorized services'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Incumbent Status--Licensing Data
27. The Commission proposes to define incumbent operations entitled
to protection or relocation (until the sunset date), or for
grandfathered status, based on the facilities authorized in the
Commission licensing records.\90\ In the Order, see FCC 23-36, paras.
143-147 (FR 2023-13502), published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, the Commission directs fixed and mobile BAS and CARS
licensees under parts 74 and 78, for each of their authorizations to
use the 12.7 GHz band, to certify the accuracy of all information
reflected on each license, including whether the facilities are
operating as authorized. If a licensee is unable to make such a
certification for a given license, it must cancel or modify the license
in accordance with the Commission's rules. For BAS and CARS licenses,
the Commission proposes to limit eligibility for incumbent status in
the 12.7 GHz band to those licenses for which the licensee has timely
filed the certification required in the Order in ULS or COALS,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ Licensing data for fixed and mobile BAS under part 74 and
Fixed Microwave under part 101 is in ULS. Licensing data for fixed
and mobile CARS is in COALS. Licensing data for FSS stations is in
MyIBFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Although the Commission does not require other incumbents to
provide additional information on their existing operations at this
time, in the Order the Commission directs the Bureaus, in coordination
with the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), to consider whether
additional information should be collected from some or all 12.7 GHz
band incumbents. In the event that additional information is required
from incumbents, the Commission proposes to limit eligibility for
incumbent status to those incumbents that file such required
certifications or data. Because the Commission proposed to use these
licensing data to inform its deliberations regarding the future use of
the 12.7 GHz band, including possible interference avoidance
coordination or relocation of facilities, or grandfathered status that
could require future licensees to accept harmful interference from
existing

[[Page 43946]]

operations, the Commission encourages all licensees to timely submit
their data and to update their information in the event of a change in
any of the operational parameters.
e. Cost-Sharing
29. When the Commission adopts a transition plan that involves the
relocation of incumbents, new entrants sometimes have to relocate an
incumbent from a larger frequency range or greater geographic area than
where the new entrant will operate, thereby clearing the incumbent for
the benefit of others. In such cases, the Commission has often
developed cost sharing requirements, so that all licensees that derive
a benefit from a relocation action share the responsibility for the
costs of that relocation, regardless of whether they are the first to
deploy their system or deploy their systems after other licensees have
already deployed and incurred spectrum-clearing costs.\91\ The
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt cost-sharing
procedures applicable to the relocation of incumbents in the 12.7 GHz
band. If so, how should the Commission apportion the expenses of a
relocation among those new entrants that benefit from the relocation?
What type of formula should be applied? Would that formula differ for
the reimbursement of relocated fixed microwave services and non-fixed
or mobile BAS and CARS operations? If so, how would it differ, and why?
For example, if the Commission was to impose an obligation on a new
entrant to relocate all non-fixed and mobile BAS and CARS on a market-
by-market basis prior to commencing operations, should it obligate all
new entrants that are licensed to operate in a cleared market to pay a
pro rata share of those costs? \92\ What type of test should determine
whether a new entrant has triggered a cost-sharing obligation for a
relocated microwave link or one or more repacked mobile BAS/CARS
systems authorized in any part of a new entrant's licensed area? For
example, the Commission adopted a Proximity Threshold Test to determine
whether an AWS licensee triggered a cost-sharing obligation for
relocated microwave links.\93\ If the Commission was to adopt a similar
Proximity Threshold Test here, how would the input data in Sec.
27.1168(a)(3)(i) differ to reflect the higher band of microwave
operations in the 12.7 GHz band?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ 3.7 GHz Band Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2445, para.
250; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--
Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Bands, WT Docket No. 12-357, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483,
9548, para. 167 (2013); Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's
Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services
to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services,
Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258,
Ninth Report and Order and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4473, 4478, para. 8
(2006); Amendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for
Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, WT Docket No. 95-157,
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 13999,
14004, para. 10 (2000).
\92\ See AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20753 paras.
72-73 (stating the first entrant may seek reimbursement from
subsequently entering licensees for a proportional share of the
first entrant's costs in clearing BAS spectrum, on a pro rata basis
according to the amount of spectrum each licensee is assigned);
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT
Docket 02-55, Fifth Report and Order, Eleventh Report and Order,
Sixth Report and Order, and Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd 13874,
13893 para. 42 (2010) (800 MHz Fifth Report and Order) (stating that
an AWS entrant will ``enter the band'' on the date that the grant of
its long-form application becomes a final action and any AWS entrant
that enters the band prior to the sunset date will be required to
reimburse an entrant that has relocated BAS incumbents a pro rata
share of the relocation costs).
\93\ 47 CFR 27.1168. In comparison, the Commission determined
that an AWS licensee triggered a reimbursement obligation for
relocated BAS operations in the 2 GHz band upon grant of its long-
form application. See 800 MHz Fifth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at
13893, para. 42 (stating that an AWS entrant will ``enter the band''
on the date that the grant of its long-form application becomes a
final action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. Would there be a need to designate one or more clearinghouses
to administer the cost-sharing plan and calculate the amount of each
beneficiary's reimbursement obligation in accordance with any formula
that would be set forth in the Commission's rules? \94\ Are there
opportunities to incentivize the relocation of some or all types of
incumbents on an accelerated basis? \95\ Would some form of the
accelerated relocation payment approach such as was used for the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band (3.7 GHz band) be appropriate to accelerate clearing some
or all incumbent services out of some or all of the 12.7 GHz band? \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ A cost-sharing clearinghouse is a third-party that is
typically designated by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
pursuant to delegated authority. See Expanding Flexible Use of the
3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket 18-22, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd
11859 (WTB 2020); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Designates
Clearinghouses That Will Administer the 2 GHz PCS Relocation Cost-
Sharing Plan, DA 96-1522, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 10634 (WTB
1996); see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Finds CTIA and
PCIA Qualified to Administer the Cost-Sharing Plan for Licensees in
the 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket 02-353, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 11265
(WTB 2006).
\95\ Based on the unique record presented for the 3.7 GHz band,
the Commission adopted two Accelerated Relocation Deadlines--a one
year Phase I deadline and a three-year Phase II deadline--``for
incumbent space station operators that voluntarily relocate on an
accelerated schedule (with additional obligations and incentives for
such operators).'' 3.7 GHz Band Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at
2413, para. 168.
\96\ See id. at 2413-14, paras. 168-72 (accelerated relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Alternative Approaches for Sharing the Band

31. Here the Commission explores the second alternative option
raised in the 12.7 NOI for making the 12.7 GHz band available for
mobile broadband and other expanded use: implementation of certain
sharing methodologies among incumbents and new entrants. In the 12.7
NOI, the Commission sought detailed proposals for promoting coexistence
or sharing between potential new terrestrial mobile broadband or other
expanded use and existing incumbent licensees in the 12.7 GHz band,
rather than sunsetting or relocating incumbents, or repacking of the
band.\97\ The Commission also sought comment on sharing methodologies
such as static or dynamic sharing, using a database or spectrum
management system, adopting a nonexclusive licensing system, or
application of long-term sensing technology.\98\ The Commission noted
that, while an automated spectrum management systems have been proven
to be effective for devices in the part 96 Citizens Broadband Radio
Service (CBRS), for part 15 white space devices, and for 6 GHz
unlicensed devices, there are several important differences between
them.\99\ Under the white space and 6 GHz unlicensed rules, devices
must query a database system for a list of available frequencies and
permissible operating power on a periodic basis, e.g., once per hour or
once per day, and a device may select any available operating frequency
and permissible power level from a list provided by the database.\100\
The CBRS Spectrum Access Systems (SAS) have greater interactivity with
managed devices and may require devices to change frequency or power
level or to cease operation within 60 seconds as necessary to prevent
interference to incumbent services or

[[Page 43947]]

devices with a higher spectrum access priority.\101\ The sharing
methods that have been proven for white space devices and CBRS, in
conjunction with new or developing sharing technologies, may be used in
the 12.7-13.25 GHz band to maximize the use of spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ 12.7 NOI at *6, para. 14.
\98\ Id. at *6-*8, paras. 16-21.
\99\ Id. at *7, para. 17.
\100\ Id. at *7, para. 17 (citing 47 CFR 15.711(h)(1)-(2),
15.407(k)(8)(iv)). While the D.C. Circuit did remand a portion of
the 6 GHz Report and Order to the Commission for further discussion,
this limited remand concerned a commenter's arguments regarding
unlicensed devices operating without a spectrum management system
rather than higher powered devices controlled by the 6 GHz band
automated frequency coordination (AFC) system. See Unlicensed Use of
the 6 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 18-295, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852 (2020), aff'd in part
and remanded in part, AT&T Servs. Inc., v. FCC, 21 F.4th 841, 853-54
(D.C. Cir. 2021).
\101\ 12.7 NOI at *7, para. 17 (citing 47 CFR 96.39(c)(2)).
Relative to such sharing approaches, the Commission also seeks
comments on whether any third-party entity that manages,
coordinates, or facilitates use of devices by those who are not
individually licensed should be required to collect and maintain
data documenting operation of devices, including the identity of
those persons or entities operating such devices. If so, how long
should this data should be retained and made available to the
Commission upon request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. Federated Wireless proposes a Dynamic Spectrum Management
System (DSMS) as an effective and efficient way to maximize the use of
the 12.7 GHz band, with new and innovative uses of spectrum, while
protecting incumbent operations.\102\ The DSMS would operate by
acquiring information about the incumbent's spectrum use by several
methods such as querying a database like the Universal Licensing System
(ULS), receiving notifications through an automated portal system,
sensing incumbent use, or a combination of two or more of these
methods.\103\ Federated Wireless also proposes that the Commission
adopt a multi-tiered licensing framework in the 12.7 GHz band, similar
to the three-tiered regulatory framework used by the SAS in the CBRS
band.\104\ The three-tier regulatory framework used by the CBRS band
enables different classes of users while providing interference
protection to incumbents in the 3550-3700 MHz band.\105\ Other
commenters, such as the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, NCTA, and the Open
Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, all support adopting a
shared-licensing framework, emphasizing the benefits that have been
achieved in the TV White Space, CBRS, and 6 GHz band.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ Federated Wireless Comments at 2.
\103\ Federated Wireless Comments at 3.
\104\ Federated Wireless Comments at 5.
\105\ See 47 CFR 96.11(a).
\106\ DSA Comments at 2; NCTA Comments at 4; Open Technology
Institute and Public Knowledge Comments at 8 (OTI & PK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. The Society of Broadcast Engineers claims that neither an
database-driven spectrum management system nor a spectrum-sensing
approach to spectrum sharing will provide adequate protection for
electronic news-gathering operations in the band.\107\ It adds that
spectrum sensing is unable to detect the one-way transmission equipment
used in mobile newsgathering, and database-driven systems like the an
automated frequency coordination system will not precisely capture
mobile BAS operations, which by definition do not have a fixed location
found in any database.\108\ In its comments, Verizon discourages the
use of new and complex dynamic sharing methods or database coordination
requirements that may limit investments and complicate new mobile
broadband deployments into the 12.7 GHz band.\109\ Instead, it
recommends the use of an exclusive-use, flexible-rights licensing
framework, as well as coordination, repacking, and relocation that is
better suited for incumbent operations.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ SBE Comments at 5.
\108\ SBE Comments at 5.
\109\ Verizon Comments at 1-2, 5-6.
\110\ Verizon Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. The Commission seeks comment on using an automated spectrum
management system such as the automated frequency coordination (AFC)
systems used in the 6 GHz band or spectrum access systems used in CBRS
as a method to enable spectrum sharing in the 12.7 GHz band as an
alternative to relocating incumbents or repacking the band. To
determine whether a new mobile broadband device can operate at a
particular location on a given frequency, the device would be required
to obtain either a list of permissible frequencies from an automated
spectrum management system prior to transmitting or a list of
prohibited frequencies on which it cannot transmit. The Commission
envisions the automated spectrum management system to be a database
that is simple to implement. The Commission seeks comment on this
alternative proposal. What capabilities should be incorporated into the
automated spectrum management system? Should it use a centralized model
where all data and computations are done in a central location? In this
case, the device would establish a connection with the automated
spectrum management system, provide its location and technical details,
and the automated spectrum management system will communicate the list
of permissible frequencies (or a list of prohibited frequencies) back
to the device. Or should the automated spectrum management system's
architecture be de-centralized where the device maintains a local
database of incumbent operations and performs the necessary
computations to determine which frequencies and power levels can be
used without causing harmful interference? Under such a model, how
would the local database within the device be kept up to date? What are
the trade-offs, including the costs and benefits, between a centralized
versus a decentralized model in terms of efficiency, device complexity,
and ability to protect incumbent licensee operations?
35. Because BAS was not present in the portions of the 6 GHz band
where the AFC systems manage access to spectrum, mobile BAS/CARS was
not addressed in the 6 GHz band AFC implementation. The mobile nature
of these BAS/CARS operations makes it more difficult to manage spectrum
access in real time. Electronic news gathering trucks, while they are
mobile by definition, operate in a fixed fashion and direct
transmissions towards fixed receive sites when broadcasting from the
location of scheduled sporting or news events. Mobile BAS/CARS
equipment may also be used for short-range connectivity such as
relaying signals from a camera to a news gathering truck. For these
types of itinerant mobile-fixed operation, a mobile BAS/CARS licensee
could provide advanced notice of its planned operation to enable the
automated spectrum management system to protect the BAS operations from
harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment or proposals on
whether these sorts of planned mobile operations can be accommodated on
an AFC or SAS-like system. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
mobile BAS/CARS operations in this band are, in fact, similar to BAS
use in the 6 GHz band, and if not whether there are additional
considerations that an automated spectrum management would need to
address specific to this band. Could such a system be adapted to
accommodate unplanned, unscheduled news or other events?
36. Should the automated spectrum management system determine
frequency availability using the proposed permissible power limits for
base stations, mobile stations, and transportable stations or should it
instead determine frequency availability at power levels less than the
maximum, and calculate a list of available frequencies and the maximum
power permitted on each one? If the automated spectrum management
system calculates the maximum power for each frequency, how would it
control the power levels of mobile broadband devices to ensure that
they operate at permissible levels? How should frequency availability
information be reported to the devices? Should the automated spectrum
management system report availability for discrete frequency bands,
e.g., 10 or 20 megahertz channels, or should it simply report the range
or ranges of available frequencies? Alternatively, should the automated
spectrum

[[Page 43948]]

management system simply list the range or ranges of unavailable
frequencies?
37. The Commission seeks comment on whether device registration
with the automated spectrum management system is necessary. Under a
registration requirement, a mobile broadband device would transmit
identifying information along with its location to the automated
spectrum management system before receiving a list of permissible
frequencies.\111\ Alternatively, a device under a centralized system
architecture could provide only its location data and the automated
spectrum management system would provide it with the list of
permissible channels for that location. Under a decentralized system
architecture, registration would not necessarily be required as the
device only needs periodic updates of the local fixed service operating
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ Fixed white space devices and Citizens Broadband Radio
Service Devices are required to register certain information with
the white space database or Spectrum Access System, including the
device's location, antenna height above ground, device
identification information, and contact information for the device's
operator. 47 CFR 15.713(g), 96.39(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. The Commission seeks comment on the types of security
requirements that would be necessary for an automated spectrum
management system that manages mobile broadband devices in the 12.7 GHz
band. White space devices and databases, CBRS devices and the SAS, as
well as 6 GHz AFC systems and unlicensed devices are required to
incorporate security measures to ensure that devices communicate only
with authorized databases, that all communications and interactions
between a database and devices are accurate and secure, and that
unauthorized parties cannot access or alter a database, or the list of
available frequencies sent to a device.\112\ Are similar requirements
necessary or appropriate for devices and an automated spectrum
management system in the 12.7 GHz band? Are any additional requirements
necessary? Does the Commission need to specify security requirements
for devices to ensure that the software within them cannot be easily
modified to enable operation on frequencies other than those indicated
as available by the automated spectrum management system?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ See 47 CFR 96.39(f), 15.407(k)(8)(v), 15.713(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Licensing and Operating Rules

1. Part 27
39. To encourage intensive investment in, and robust deployment of,
next-generation wireless networks, the Commission has adopted or
proposed licensing approaches for other mid-band spectrum that are
tailored to the unique characteristics of each band. The Commission
proposes and seeks comment on service-specific rules for the 12.7 GHz
band. In addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs
and benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that
commenters propose.
40. The Commission proposes to license the spectrum under its
flexible-use part 27 rules, which permit licensees to provide any fixed
or mobile service consistent with the permitted allocations, subject to
rules necessary to prevent or minimize harmful interference. With the
exception noted below, under this proposal, new mobile broadband and
other expanded use licensees in the 12.7 GHz band would comply with
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 27
services,\113\ including flexible use,\114\ regulatory status,\115\
foreign ownership reporting,\116\ compliance with construction
requirements,\117\ renewal criteria,\118\ permanent discontinuance of
operations,\119\ partitioning and disaggregation,\120\ and spectrum
leasing.\121\ The Commission seeks comment generally on this approach.
With respect to technical rules and performance requirements, the
Commission intends to adopt rules based on commenter concerns and its
experience and expertise. Finally, the Commission proposes to make its
licensing, authorization, and service rules governing the 12.7 GHz band
applicable nationwide, i.e., within the Contiguous United States
(CONUS) as well as the non-contiguous states, territories, and
possessions. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\113\ See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and
101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal et al., Second Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 32 FCC
Rcd 8874 (2017) (WRS Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM) (amending
several of the rules applicable to part 27 services).
\114\ Section 303(y) provides the Commission with authority to
provide for flexibility of use if: ``(1) such use is consistent with
international agreements to which the United States is a party; and
(2) the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, that (A) such an allocation would be in the public
interest; (B) such use would not deter investment in communications
services and systems, or technology development; and (C) such use
would not result in harmful interference among users.'' Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-22, 111 Stat. 251, 269-69; 47
U.S.C. 303(y). See also 47 CFR 27.2, 27.3.
\115\ 47 CFR 27.10.
\116\ 47 U.S.C. 310; 47 CFR 27.12.
\117\ 47 CFR 27.14(k).
\118\ Id. Sec. 1.949.
\119\ Id. Sec. 1.953.
\120\ Id. Sec. 1.950.
\121\ Id. Sec. Sec. 1.9001 through 1.9080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 12.7 GHz Band Plan
41. The Commission's goal in this proceeding is to make as much of
the 12.7 GHz band available for mobile broadband or other expanded uses
as possible in order to facilitate next-generation uses of spectrum
that are increasingly necessary in the modern, connected world. To
promote effective use of the 12.7 GHz band, the Commission proposes a
technologically neutral policy for licensing the band. That is, the
Commission does not make any technological choices or prohibitions, or
prefer any particular kind of technology. The Commission does not
propose a duplex gap, or distinct blocks for base and mobile that would
presume or prohibit FDD or TDD deployments. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Are there interference issues that the
Commission is not currently anticipating that this regime would create?
The Commission ask commenters to address interference concerns between
FDD and TDD, explain how they could coexist in the band, and discuss
coordination and interference rules that must apply if both were to be
permitted. In section I.B.3.b above (Mobile BAS/CARS), the Commission
proposes to set aside 25 megahertz to repack mobile BAS/CARS
incumbents.
3. Spectrum Block Sizes for New Licenses
42. Currently, the 12.7 GHz band is licensed for satellite, BAS/
CARS fixed and mobile use, and other fixed uses. Under its band plan
proposal, most of the 550 megahertz would be made available to new
entrants for mobile or other expanded uses, with a small portion of the
band set aside to accommodate repacked mobile BAS/CARS incumbents. The
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate block sizes for these new
licenses to best promote efficient and robust use of the band for next-
generation wireless technologies. Several commenters note the
importance of larger block sizes to the deployment of mobile broadband
and other expanded uses; indeed, some commenters indicate that as
broadband technologies evolve, operators will be required to have
contiguous 100 megahertz blocks to deliver next-generation
broadband.\122\ In light of this

[[Page 43949]]

concern, the Commission believes that 100 megahertz blocks will produce
the best environment for 5G and future 6G deployments, as large block
sizes support faster data speeds and better coverage for next-
generation deployments.\123\ Additionally, the Commission believes 100
megahertz blocks will afford adequate flexibility to prospective
licensees in terms of system design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\122\ See, e.g. AT&T Comments at 4; Qualcomm Comments at 7
(noting that a 5G base station with 100 MHz bandwidth provides sub-
meter positioning accuracy, and that more bandwidth will allow for
more precise positioning and improve overall network performance);
Verizon Comments at 9; Ericsson Reply at 10-11; 5G Americas Reply at
6.
\123\ ``[T]he Commission should prioritize large bandwidths such
as 50-megahertz or 100-megahertz channel blocks, the latter which
`have become international best practice and are implemented in the
majority of 5G-leading markets.' '' Verizon Comments at 9 (quoting
GSMA, 5G Spectrum: GSMA Public Policy Position, at 5 (June 2022),
<a href="https://www.gsma.com/-spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/5G-Spectrum-Positions.pdf">https://www.gsma.com/-spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/5G-Spectrum-Positions.pdf</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

43. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal (100 MHz blocks)
and on how to authorize any spectrum blocks less than 100 megahertz
depending on the size of the mobile BAS/CARS repack band. Commenters
offering an alternative proposal should detail the advantages and
disadvantages of their favored approach, including any costs and
benefits, based on what they know about the technical requirements of
the respective technologies that either use or could use the band. The
Commission recognize that some commenters favor smaller blocks of 50
megahertz.\124\ If the Commission adopts smaller sized blocks, should
the Commission allow licensees to aggregate the use of these separate
licenses into wider bandwidths while retaining the performance
requirements of each individual license? Would this approach help
ensure that spectrum is put to use, as compared to larger block sizes?
Are there any additional considerations that the Commission should take
into account in determining the spectrum block sizes to be used for new
licenses in this band?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\124\ Competitive Carriers' Association Reply at 5; T-Mobile
Comments at 14; US Cellular Reply at 5. Some Commenters, such as T-
Mobile, argue that 100 megahertz blocks would orphan a 50 megahertz
block, or otherwise require the Commission to license the band with
blocks of varying size. T-Mobile Comments at 14; US Cellular
Comments at 6. The Commission notes that under its band plan
proposal, some spectrum would be designated for repacking incumbent
mobile BAS/CARS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Geographic License Area Sizes
44. Consistent with its approach in several other bands used to
provide fixed and mobile services, the Commission proposes to license
the 12.7 GHz spectrum on an exclusive, geographic-area basis.\125\
Geographic-area licensing provides flexibility to licensees, promotes
efficient spectrum use, and helps facilitate rapid assignment of
licenses. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, including the
costs and benefits of adopting a geographic area licensing scheme. In
the event that a party does not support using geographic licensing, it
should explain its position, describe what type of licensing scheme it
supports, and identify the costs and benefits associated with its
alternative licensing proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\125\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.6 (h), (i) (AWS-1 and AWS-4,
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

45. In determining the appropriate geographic license size, the
Commission considers several factors, including: (1) facilitating
access to spectrum by both small and large providers; (2) providing for
the efficient use of spectrum; (3) encouraging deployment of wireless
broadband services to consumers, especially those in rural areas and
Tribal lands; and (4) promoting investment in and rapid deployment of
new technologies and services.\126\ In light of these statutory
considerations, the Commission proposes to issue flexible use licenses
on a Partial Economic Area (PEA) basis.\127\ The Commission asks
commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other
public interest considerations of licensing on a PEA basis. The
Commission observes that the question of geographic license area sizes
intersects with the question of whether to issue exclusive or shared
licenses: those that favor exclusive licenses often prefer PEAs or
larger, whereas those that favor shared licensing regimes prefer
smaller areas, such as counties.\128\ Because the Commission proposes
to license the band exclusively, the Commission also proposes PEAs. In
its judgment, this area size will also help promote rural deployments
by facilitating access to spectrum by small and regional service
providers and beyond.\129\ The Commission seeks comment on licensing
the 12.7 GHz band on a PEA basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162,
25174, para. 31 (2003) (AWS-1 Service Rules R&O).
\127\ See 47 CFR part 27, subpart A, appendix A--List of Partial
Economic Areas with Corresponding Counties.
\128\ But see RWA Comments at 2 (arguing for counties and not
PEAs for licensed area size).
\129\ See, e.g., US Cellular Reply at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

46. Some commenters seek smaller areas, such as counties.\130\ They
argue that these smaller areas help smaller businesses and rural
areas.\131\ Could smaller license areas increase the possibility of
interference between adjacent areas and complicate a licensee's ability
to fully deploy services using their licensed spectrum in their service
areas? \132\ If so, are there other reasons that would nevertheless
support adopting smaller license areas such as promoting competition?
\133\ Would smaller or larger areas promote or complicate cost-sharing
for relocation of incumbents? Are there any additional considerations
that the Commission should take into account when determining the
geographic license areas sizes for new licenses in the 12.7 GHz band
when weighing the factors listed above? For example, could a smaller
license area help promote deployment in Tribal areas? The Commission
notes that several commenters suggest providing priority access to
spectrum over Tribal lands to Tribal entities.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\130\ RWA Comments at 2-3; OTI & PK Comments at 7; WISPA Reply
at 1-2, 7; see also see Letter from Traci Biswese, Vice President &
Associate General Counsel, NCTA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, GN Docket No. 22-352, at 3 (May 11, 2023) (NCTA May 11, 2023 Ex
Parte).
\131\ RWA points out that the propagation characteristics of the
band warrant adoption of smaller-sized license areas. RWA Comments
at 3. In proposing PEAs, the Commission is making the judgement that
it propagates sufficiently far to justify PEA-sized areas. The
Commission also seeks comments on this approach.
\132\ See T-Mobile Reply at 6.
\133\ See NCTA May 11, 2023 Ex Parte at 3.
\134\ See Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge May 10,
2023 Ex Parte at 3 (``With regard to creating a rural Tribal window
for any spectrum authorized for new licensees in the 12.7 GHz band,
the success of the 2.5 GHz window demonstrates the enormous value to
Tribes of creating the opportunity for greater spectrum access on
Tribal lands. This would also be consistent with the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, 11/23/2022. Available at https://www.bia.gov/sites/
default/files/dup/inline-files/mou_esb46-009818_doi-fcc-
ntia_electromagnetic_spectrum_on_tribal_lands_2022-11-
23_final_fcc_ntia_doi_signed_508.pdf''). See also Tribal Ready May
10, 2023 Ex Parte (``The Commission has previously recognized the
value of Tribal set asides in promoting deployment as recently as
the 2.5 GHz band. The 12 GHz band can and should also be an option
to help Native Americans close the digital divide.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. License Term and Renewal
47. The Commission proposes to establish a 10-year license term for
new mobile broadband and other expanded use licenses in the 12.7 GHz
band. The Commission believes that a 10-year term serves its goal of
providing licensees with flexibility to develop this spectrum as the
market demands and to employ innovative technologies which may not be
available immediately upon licensing. The Commission acknowledges that
the Commission has adopted license terms longer than 10 years to
account for delays in relocating incumbent operations. In this case,
however, because the existing use of the

[[Page 43950]]

band is relatively light, the Commission is proposing its standard 10-
year license term along with an additional year (relative to some
services) to meet the proposed interim buildout requirement. The
Commission also proposes to apply its general renewal requirements for
wireless radio service licenses.\135\ The Commission seeks comment on
these proposed license term and renewal requirements, as well as on the
costs and benefits of these proposals.\136\ Are there alternative
license terms that might be better suited for this band?\137\ If an
alternative license term is better, what impact would it have on
investment or deployment, particularly for smaller or rural entities,
and how could the Commission determines its costs and benefits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ See 47 CFR 1.949 (Application for renewal of license). The
WRS Renewal 2nd R&O and FNPRM adopted a unified framework for
construction, renewal, and service continuity rules for flexible use
geographic licenses in the Wireless Radio Services. See Amendment of
Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform
License Renewal et al., WT Docket No. 10-112, Second Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 32 FCC
Rcd 8874 (2017) (WRS Renewal Reform 2nd R&O and FNPRM). Accord,
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-
122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd
2343, 2390, para. 106 (2020) (3.7 GHz Report and Order).
\136\ The Communications Act does not specify a term limit for
wireless radio services licenses. The only statutory limit on
license terms is eight years for licenses in the broadcast services.
See 47 U.S.C. 307(c)(1); see also 47 CFR 73.1020(a).
\137\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.14(k) (AWS-3 licenses have a 12-year
initial license terms and 10-year renewal terms), (l) (600 MHz band
licenses have 12-year initial license terms and 10-year renewal
terms).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Performance Requirements
48. The Commission establishes performance requirements to ensure
that spectrum is intensely and efficiently used. The Commission has
applied different performance and construction requirements to
different spectrum bands based on considerations relevant to those
bands.\138\ The Commission continues to believe that performance
requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum
does not lie fallow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H
Block--Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000
MHz Bands, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 9558-59, para. 195
(2013) (requiring 40 percent population coverage within four years
of initial grant and 75 percent population coverage within 10 years
of initial grant); see also Amendment of the Commission's Rules with
Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz,
and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4610, 4659-60,
para. 135 (2014) (requiring 40 percent population coverage within
six years of initial grant and 75 percent population coverage within
12 years of initial grant); Expanding the Economic and Innovation
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and
Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6877-78, para. 764 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

49. In response to the 12.7 NOI,\139\ AT&T, T-Mobile, Intelsat,
Ericsson and others note that the 12.7 GHz band shares many
characteristics with millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum.\140\ Despite these
similarities, T-Mobile and Intelsat suggest that performance
requirements for the 12.7 GHz band should not necessarily be similar to
those that apply to the mmW spectrum, given the difficulties mmW bands
have had fulfilling buildout requirements.\141\ Moreover, T-Mobile
suggests that the Commission carefully consider buildout requirements
and allow for flexibility based on the unique needs of the spectrum
being used and the geographic area being served.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ See, e.g., 12.7 NOI at *11, para. 31.
\140\ AT&T Comments at 1; Ericsson Comments at 8; T-Mobile
Comments at 14; Intelsat Reply at 11-12.
\141\ T-Mobile Comments at 14-15 (citing an NTIA Study that
examined outdoor propagation in the 37-40 GHz band in Boulder,
Colorado); Intelsat Reply at 11; T-Mobile Reply at 4-5.
\142\ T-Mobile Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

50. As with other part 27 services, the Commission proposes to
adopt specific quantifiable benchmarks for different types of
operations. For the 12.7 GHz band, the Commission proposes to require
licensees offering mobile or point-to-multipoint services to provide
reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 30% to 45% of
the population in each of their license areas within five years \143\
of the license issue date (interim performance benchmark), and to at
least 60% to 80% of the population in each of their license areas
within ten years from the license issue date (final performance
benchmark).\144\ The Commission seeks comment on this proposal
including the specific population coverage percentage appropriate for
the interim and final benchmarks. The Commission recognizes that,
relative to the recently established 3.45 GHz Service, which has
buildout deadlines at years four and eight,\145\ the Commission is
proposing an additional year for 12.7 GHz band licensees to meet the
proposed first buildout requirement and an additional two years to meet
the second buildout requirement. The Commission believes this
additional time is warranted given the lack of industry standards and
12.7 GHz band mobile broadband equipment. The Commission proposes
licensees providing fixed point-to-point service would be required to
demonstrate within five years of the license issue date (interim
performance benchmark) that they have four links operating and
providing service, if the population within the license area is equal
to or less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is
greater than 268,000, a licensee relying on point-to-point service
would need to demonstrate that it has at least one link in operation
and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, per
every 67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission proposes to
require licensees relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate
within ten years of the license issue date (final performance
benchmark) that they have eight links operating and providing service,
either to customers or for internal use, if the population within the
license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within
the license area is greater than 268,000, the Commission proposes to
require a licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate it
is providing service and has at least two links in operation per every
67,000 persons within a license area.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\143\ For AWS-4, AWS H Block, and 3.45 GHz Service, the first
performance benchmark is 4 years from the date of the initial
license and the second performance benchmark is 8 years from the
date of the initial license for AWS-4 and 3.45 GHz Service and 10
years for H Block. For services with incumbent transitions, the
first performance benchmark ranges from 6 years (AWS-3, 600 MHz) to
8 years (3.7 GHz Service) from the date of the initial license, and
the second performance benchmark is 12 years (AWS-3, 600 MHz, 3.7
GHz Service). See 47 CFR 27.14(q), (r),(s),(t),(v),(w).
\144\ The Commission's proposals and questions comport with
actions taken for other licenses taking into account the unique
characteristics of the 12.7 GHz band, e.g., presence of incumbents
and the location of this mid-band spectrum--significantly higher
than 3.7 GHz but significantly lower than mmW spectrum. See, e.g.,
47 CFR 27.14(v)(1) (requiring a 3.7 GHz Service licensee providing
mobile or point-to-multipoint service to cover 45% of population
within eight years of initial grant and 80% population coverage
within 12 years of initial grant); 47 CFR 27.14(w)(1)(i) (requiring
a 3.45 GHz Service licensee providing mobile or point-to-point
service to cover 45% of population within 4 years and 80% of
population within 8 years of initial grant); 47 CFR 30.103,
30.104(a) (requiring a UMFUS licensee providing mobile or point-to-
multipoint service to cover 40% of population within ten years).
\145\ See 47 CFR 27.14(w)(1)(i).
\146\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.14(v)(1) (requiring a 3.7 GHz Service
licensee providing point-to-point service to demonstrate within 8
years and 12 years of initial grant that they are operating four
links and eight links, respectively, and providing service to
customers or for internal use if the license area is equal to or
less than 268,000, and if the population is greater than 268,000,
that they are operating at least one link within 8 years and at
least two links within 12 years and providing service to customers
or for internal use per every 67,000 persons within a license area);
27.14(w)(1)(ii) (requiring a 3.45 GHz Service licensee providing
point-to-point service to demonstrate within 4 years and 8 years of
initial grant that they are operating four links and eight links,
respectively, and providing service to customers or for internal use
if the license area is equal to or less than 268,000, and if the
population is greater than 268,000, that they are operating at least
one link within 4 years and at least two links within 8 years and
providing service to customers or for internal use per every 67,000
persons within a license area); 47 CFR 30.103, 30.104(a) (requiring
a UMFUS licensee providing point-to-point service to demonstrate
within 10 years of initial grant that they are operating four links
and providing service to customers or for internal use if the
license area is equal to or less than 268,000, and if the population
is greater than 268,000, that they are operating at least one link
and providing service to customers or for internal use per every
67,000 persons within a license area).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43951]]

51. The Commission also proposes alternate Internet of Things (IoT)
performance requirements in order to allow for flexibility to provide
services potentially less suited to a population coverage metric.
Specifically, the Commission proposes that licensees providing IoT-type
services would have flexibility to demonstrate that they offer
geographic area coverage of at least 25% to 35% of the license area at
the interim (five-year) performance benchmark, and geographic area
coverage of at least 50% to 65% of the license area at the final (ten-
year) performance benchmark.\147\ The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal including the specific geographic area coverage percentage
appropriate for the interim and final benchmarks metrics appropriate in
the 12.7 GHz band. Commenters should discuss the appropriate metric to
accommodate such service offerings or other innovative services in the
12.7 GHz band, as well as the costs and benefits of an alternative
approach. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt
renewal-term performance obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.14(v)(2) (requiring a 3.7 GHz Service
licensee providing Internet of Things service to offer geographic
area coverage of 35% of the license area within 8 years of initial
grant and geographic area coverage of 65% of the license area within
12 years of initial grant); 27.14(w)(1)(iii) (requiring a 3.45 GHz
Service licensee providing Internet of Things service to offer
geographic area coverage of 35% of the license area within 4 years
of initial grant and geographic area coverage of 65% of the license
area within 8 years of initial grant); 47 CFR 30.103, 30.104(b)
(requiring a UMFUS licensee providing Internet of Things or other
services deployed along non-traditional lines to offer geographic
area coverage of 25% of the license area within 10 years of initial
grant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

52. Compliance Procedures. The Commission proposes that to
demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, licensees
shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census Data at the
time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population or
geographic area served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level.
The population or area within a specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) would be deemed served by the licensee only if
it provides reliable signal coverage to and offers service within the
specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the extent
the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond the
boundaries of a license area, a licensee with authorizations for such
areas may include only the population or geographic area within the
Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the
performance requirement of a single, individual license. If a licensee
does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area,
the license must provide a map that accurately depicts the boundaries
of the area or areas within each license area not being served. Each
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of
service it is providing for each licensed area within its service
territory and the type of technology used to provide such service.
Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create
the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal
strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's
technology.
53. Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements. Along
with performance benchmarks, the Commission proposes to adopt
meaningful and enforceable penalties for failing to meet those
benchmarks. The Commission proposes that, in the event a licensee fails
to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's final benchmark
and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to
meet the final performance benchmark two years sooner (at 8 years into
the license term) and reducing its license term to 8 years. If a
licensee fails to meet the final performance benchmark for a particular
license area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails
to meet the performance requirement shall terminate automatically
without Commission action. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and on which penalties will most effectively ensure timely
buildout.
54. The Commission seeks comment on how, in the event a 12.7 GHz
band licensee's authority to operate terminates, its spectrum rights
should become available for reassignment pursuant to the licensing
framework the Commission adopts for this band. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether, consistent with the Commission's rules for
other part 27 licenses, the Commission should require that any 12.7 GHz
band flexible use licensee that forfeits its license for failure to
meet its performance requirements be precluded from regaining that
license. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other performance
requirements and enforcement mechanisms that would effectively ensure
timely buildout.
7. Open Eligibility
55. The Commission proposes to adopt an open eligibility standard
for licenses in the 12.7 GHz band, consistent with established
Commission practice.\148\ An open eligibility standard should encourage
the development of new technologies, products, and services, while
helping to ensure efficient use of this spectrum. The Commission seeks
comment on this assumption. The Commission notes that an open
eligibility approach would not affect citizenship, character, or other
generally applicable qualifications that may apply under its
rules.\149\ Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of the
open eligibility proposal on competition, innovation, and investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\148\ The Commission has determined in a number of services that
eligibility restrictions on licenses may be imposed only when open
eligibility would pose a significant likelihood of substantial harm
to competition in specific markets and when an eligibility
restriction would be effective in eliminating that harm. This
approach relies on market forces absent a compelling showing that
regulatory intervention to exclude potential participants is
necessary. See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, Report and Order and
Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16193, paras. 241-
42 (2012); Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz
Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150 et al., Second Report and Order, 22 FCC
Rcd 15289, 15381, 15383-84, paras. 253, 256 (2007) (700 MHz Second
Report and Order); Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz,
81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Report and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318, 23346-47, para. 70 (2003).
\149\ Id. sections 301, 308(b), 310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Mutually Exclusive Applications for New Licenses
56. As discussed above, the Commission proposes to use an exclusive
geographic area licensing scheme for the 12.7 GHz spectrum, which will
permit the filing of mutually exclusive applications. The Commission's
statutory authority to resolve mutually exclusive applications for
initial licenses through a system of competitive bidding has lapsed.
Accordingly, in the event the Commission determines to adopt a mutually
exclusive application approach, the Commission seeks comment on how it
should resolve mutually exclusive applications for new initial licenses
in the 12.7 GHz band in light of the lapse in its authority to use
competitive bidding. In the event that the Commission's statutory
authority

[[Page 43952]]

with respect to auctions is restored, the Commission delegates
authority to WTB and the Office of Economics and Analytics to seek
comment on appropriate competitive bidding rules and procedures,
consistent with prior Commission guidance.
9. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
57. Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile
wireless services, and ensuring access to and the availability of
sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting the competition that drives
innovation and investment.\150\ The Commission has held that the
Communications Act requires a close examination of the impact of
spectrum aggregation on competition, innovation, and the efficient use
of spectrum to ensure that spectrum is allocated and assigned in a
manner that serves the public interest, convenience and necessity, and
avoids the excessive concentration of licenses.\151\ In this NPRM, the
Commission seeks comment generally on whether to adopt limitations on
the aggregation of spectrum holdings in the 12.7 GHz band in order to
meet its statutory requirements and to ensure competitive access to the
band. The Commission seeks comment on whether the technical and market
characteristics of the 12.7 GHz band warrant such limitations and, if
so, whether implementation of such limitations should be through the
Commission's total spectrum screen, a separate screen, a limit on
initial licensing, or other means, as discussed below.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 22-203,
Report, FCC 22-103, at 64, para. 82 (Dec. 30, 2022) (2022
Communications Marketplace Report); see NCTA May 11, 2023 Ex Parte
at 2 (arguing for the importance of promoting competition through
avoiding excessive concentration).
\151\ Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings Expanding the
Economic Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive
Auctions, WT Docket No. 12-269, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133,
6137, para. 8 (2014) (Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order).
\152\ In 2004, the Commission established its framework for
case-by-case review of spectrum aggregation (and market
concentration), in which it established a total spectrum screen
``trigger'' of approximately one-third of the total suitable and
available spectrum for commercial mobile radio services.
Applications of AT&T Wireless Inc. and Cingular Wireless Corporation
For Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21522, 21525, 21568-69,
paras. 4, 106-112 (2004) (Cingular-AT&T Wireless Order). This screen
was subsequently expanded and applied to mobile telephony/broadband
services. See, e.g., Applications of Cellco Partnership d/b/a
Verizon Wireless and Atlantis Holdings LLC for Consent to Transfer
Control of Licenses, Authorizations, and Spectrum Manager and De
Facto Transfer Leasing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 08-95, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 23 FCC Rcd 17444, 17469-
70, paras. 45-46 (2008). In 2008, the Commission determined that its
case-by-case review would also apply to the initial licensing of
spectrum acquired at auction, similar to the Commission's analysis
of secondary market transactions. Union Telephone Company and Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Applications for 700 MHz Band
Licenses, Auction No. 73, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16787, 16791-92, 16796,
paras. 9, 18 (2008). In 2014, the Commission determined that it
would treat as an ``enhanced factor'' in its case-by-case review any
proposed increase in below-1-GHz spectrum holdings resulting in the
acquiring entity holding approximately one-third or more of the
suitable and available spectrum below 1 GHz. Mobile Spectrum
Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6233, 6240, paras. 267,
286-88. In 2016, the Commission adopted a separate mmW spectrum
threshold that would apply to its case-by-case review of proposed
secondary market mmW transactions. Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24
GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., GN Docket No. 14-177, Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd
8014, 8081, 8083-84, paras. 184, 189 (2016) (Spectrum Frontiers 1st
R&O and FNPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

58. Total Spectrum Screen. The Commission examines the suitability
and availability of spectrum to determine whether particular bands
should be included within the total spectrum screen.\153\ Suitability
is determined by whether the spectrum is capable of supporting mobile
service given its physical properties and the state of equipment
technology, whether the spectrum is licensed with a mobile allocation
and corresponding service rules, and whether the spectrum is committed
to another use that effectively precludes its use for mobile
services.\154\ Spectrum is considered ``available'' if it is ``fairly
certain that it will meet the criteria for suitable spectrum in the
near term, an assessment that can be made at the time the spectrum is
licensed or at later times after changes in technology or regulation
that affect the consideration.'' \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at
6169-70, paras. 71-75.
\154\ Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at
6169, para. 71.
\155\ Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at
6169, para. 71 (internal quotation marks omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

59. The Commission seeks comment on whether, for purposes of the
spectrum screen, the 12.7 GHz band will be ``suitable'' and
``available'' for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services
shortly after the spectrum is assigned. To the extent the Commission
finds that the 12.7 GHz band is ``suitable and available,'' the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should include the band within
its total spectrum screen or within a separate spectrum screen, such as
the existing mmW threshold.\156\ To that end, the Commission seeks
comment on which bands are most similar in technical characteristics
with the 12.7 GHz band.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\156\ See 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, FCC 22-103, at
66, para. 85 and Fig. II.B.9.
\157\ See, e.g., Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile
Radio Services, et al., Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576,
5612, para. 96 (2018); Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz
Band, WT Docket 19-348, Second Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, and Order of Proposed Modification, 36 FCC Rcd
5987, 6022-23, para. 102 (2021) (3.45 GHz Second Report and Order);
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-
122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd
2343, 2382-84, paras. 85-88 (2020) (3.7 GHz Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

60. Initial licensing. Should there be a limit on the amount of
12.7 GHz band spectrum held by a single entity at the licensing stage?
If so, what should that limit be and why? Should the Commission
consider the factors set forth in the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report
and Order \158\ in determining if a limit at the initial licensing
stage is appropriate? Should the Commission's determination also be
based on the extent to which competitors have opportunities to gain
access to alternative bands that would serve the same purpose as the
12.7 GHz band.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at
6192-93, paras. 143-44.
\159\ Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at
6193, para. 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Technical Rules

1. Power Limits
61. The Commission establishes power limits for wireless services
to help limit the potential for harmful interference, among operators
using the same frequency bands (for example, in neighboring geographic
areas) as well as among operators using adjacent bands. The
determination of an appropriate power limit for a particular band is
informed by the technical characteristics of the band, as well as the
services expected to be deployed.\160\ Thus, Sec. 30.202 of the
Commission's rules restricts the power for fixed base stations
operating in connection with mobile systems to a maximum equivalent
isotropic radiated power (EIRP) density of +75 dBm/100 MHz.\161\ Under
Sec. 30.202, mobile stations and transportable stations are each
limited to a maximum EIRP of +43 dBm and +55 dBm, respectively.\162\
Since the adoption of these power limits, the Commission has seen mmW
wave deployments in various parts of the USA, chiefly in urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\160\ See, e.g., Spectrum Frontiers 1st R&O and FNPRM, 31 FCC
Rcd at 8110-12, paras. 276-80.
\161\ 47 CFR 30.202(a).
\162\ Id. Sec. 30.202(b), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

62. Setting appropriate power limits for the 12.7 GHz band requires
an

[[Page 43953]]

understanding of what services may be deployed in the band. It is
important that new technologies and feasible visions for future
wireless deployments are considered so that the appropriate power
limits are set to advance wireless innovation. Ericsson asserts that
the characteristics of the 12.7 GHz band make it a good fit for future
6G technologies and smart-city applications, and that use of the 12.7
GHz band would complement spectrum in the 3-8 GHz range.\163\ Qualcomm
states the 12.7 GHz Band is ideal for the deployment of the latest 6G
technological advances which will offer coverage levels only available
today in the lower mid-band spectrum range; these technologies, such as
Giga Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO), will overcome greater
signal losses in this upper range through higher beam directionality
and offer ubiquitous coverage, low latency, and high capacity.\164\
Qualcomm adds that increased data rates will support innovative use
cases like deeper immersion into digital and virtual worlds with
boundless augmented, virtual, extended and mixed reality (AR/VR/XR/MR)
applications and advanced sensing, which will allow for real-time
mapping of the physical world to a digital or virtual copy.\165\
Besides 6G operations, the Commission seeks comment on what other
feasible new services or technologies are envisioned to be deployed in
the band and whether they would require particular power level
profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\163\ Ericsson Comments at 3, 8.
\164\ Qualcomm Comments at 7.
\165\ Qualcomm Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

63. Based on the record in response to the 12.7 NOI, and its
technical expertise, the Commission proposes to adopt the same power
limits that are applied to UMFUS operations.\166\ Specifically, for
base stations, mobile stations, and transportable stations, the
Commission proposes to adopt an EIRP limit of +75 dBm/100 MHz (or +72
dBm/50 MHz depending on the final channel size allocations), +43 dBm,
and +55 dBm, respectively. The Commission believes these limits to be
appropriate because, the Commission agrees with commenters that RF
characteristics in this band more closely resemble mmW transmissions
than lower mid-band transmissions.\167\ Furthermore, the Commission
agrees with commenters that higher frequencies are subject to greater
signal attenuation.\168\ Commenters from the terrestrial mobile
wireless industry have submitted general feedback urging the Commission
to establish power limits in a way that does not hinder development and
innovation in this band while providing sufficient coverage for the
public.\169\ The Commission seeks comment on its proposed power limits
for this band. If beams incorporating higher directionality are
employed in this band, the Commission seeks comment on including
provisions similar to Sec. 101.145(c) to protect GSO satellites,
particularly if the Commission grandfathers existing FSS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\166\ See 47 CFR 30.202.
\167\ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 1; Ericsson Comments at 8; T-
Mobile Comments at 14; Intelsat Reply at 11-12.
\168\ See CTIA Comments at 9-10 (arguing that the greater
propagation loss at 12.7 GHz as compared to that at low mid-band
spectrum will require even higher power levels to provide meaningful
coverage range and capacity); Ericsson Comments at 2, 10; Nokia
Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 9 (``The Commission should also
promote standard-power deployments and further consider power levels
greater than those contained in part 27 of the Commission's rules to
compensate for the higher propagation losses in this frequency
range.''); CCA Reply at 1-2, (``[H]igh-powered use will provide the
greatest potential for innovation and will aid the wireless industry
in serving American consumers.''); CCA Reply at 5 (``For many CCA
members who serve suburban and rural areas, low-power operations may
be too costly because of the number of cell sites needed to provide
sufficient coverage.''); accord 5G Americas Reply at 7.
\169\ See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply at 9, 12; 5G Americas Reply at
7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

64. The Commission seeks comment on whether incumbent satellite
services and new terrestrial mobile services can coexist if the latter
will be subject to the power limits that the Commission proposes above.
Various satellite industry interests have expressed concerns that
satellite operations cannot successfully co-exist with mobile
terrestrial broadband networks in the 12.7 GHz band.\170\ Overall, they
identify two chief sources of interference: FSS uplink transmissions
can interfere with receiving terrestrial mobile stations, and aggregate
emissions of high power terrestrial mobile stations can also interfere
with the satellite antenna of an FSS system receiving in the band.\171\
As noted above, Verizon also questions how any incipient terrestrial
mobile services would coexist with a substantial number of new NGSO FSS
deployments in the band.\172\ CTIA asserts that coexistence is possible
between new entrants and incumbent FSS, because FSS space stations will
be protected based on the terrestrial service obligations contained in
Radio Regulations Table 21-1, which includes a maximum equivalent
isotropic radiated power (``EIRP'') of +45 dBW for a station in the
fixed or mobile service.\173\ The Commission agrees with CTIA that, as
long as terrestrial mobile broadband operations do not exceed the power
limits that the Commission proposes, they should pose no danger of
exceeding any aggregate interference level at any victim receivers on
satellites operating in the band, but the Commission seeks comment on
this observation. Furthermore, proposed grandfathered FSS earth
stations are not susceptible to harmful interference because they do
not receive in this band. Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on
whether satellite services and terrestrial mobile services can coexist
with power limits of Sec. 30.202. Is it appropriate to adopt these
power limits for the 12.7 GHz band for base station, mobile station,
and transportable stations? Would it be useful to limit the power
terrestrial transmitters may emit toward higher elevation angles to
protect satellite receivers from aggregate emissions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\170\ See Eutelsat Comments at 4-5; Hispasat Comments at 6-8;
Intelsat/SES Comments at 12-14.
\171\ Hispasat Comments at 6.
\172\ Verizon Comments at 8 & n.26 (citing SpaceX Gen2 Order,
FCC 22-91 at para. 49 (authorizing the construction, deployment, and
authorization of up to 7,500 satellites in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band,
among other segments)); see supra note 77 and accompanying text.
\173\ EIRP power limits in ITU radio regulations Table 21-1 does
not specify a reference bandwidth, so this power limit is 45dBW
(75dBm) regardless of the reference bandwidth, i.e. any reference
bandwidth may be used for the power limit. Therefore, the Commission
maintains that its proposed limit of 75dBm/100MHz is at least as
conservative as the ITU radio regulations power limit. For example,
the ITU regulations would permit 75dBm/1MHz, which would be higher
power than what the Commission proposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

65. The Commission also received comment urging the Commission to
conduct further technical studies before establishing power limits for
12.7 GHz band.\174\ Nokia recommends a detailed analysis regarding the
EIRP limit for flexible use in the 12.7 GHz band.\175\ It states that
such an analysis should consider ``(1) the impact of relocating some
incumbent services from the 12.7 GHz band, and a potential relaxation
of maximum EIRP requirements, (2) the coexistence scenarios involving
incumbent services in the 12.7 GHz band and in the lower and upper
adjacent bands, and (3) receiver characteristics of incumbent users,
including out-of-band receiver blocking performance.'' \176\ Are there
other comprehensive technical studies that could shed light on the
appropriate power levels for this band? What are the technical reasons
that it is appropriate or not appropriate to adopt the part 30

[[Page 43954]]

power limits? Are there alternative power limit proposals that would
serve the public interest better and what are the technical data and
analysis for these reasons? Are there alternative metrics for
controlling power in this band? The Commission further seeks comment on
any additional considerations that should be included to provide
adequate protection for services in the adjacent bands. For any
alternative or additional proposals, metrics, or considerations,
commenters should include technical details, including any and/or all
assumptions and parameters. For example, how would the in-band
requirements specified in various ITU documents, discussed above,
translate to out-of-band requirements in the 12.7 GHz? Is any further
information or assumptions necessary, particularly concerning out-of-
band receiver blocking performance for receivers in the adjacent bands?
Commenters advocating for particular technical rules to protect
operations in adjacent bands, including DBS, NGSO FSS, MVDDS, active
spaceborne sensors, and ARNS, should provide detailed information on
the receiver, antenna, and operational characteristics for such
services operating in the adjacent bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\174\ Hispasat Comments at 13-14; Nokia Comments at 6.s
\175\ Nokia Comments at 7-8.
\176\ Nokia Comments at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Out-of-Band Emissions (OOBE) Limits
66. The Commission seeks comment on appropriate out-of-band
emissions (OOBE) limits for base and mobile stations in the 12.7 GHz
band. Section 101.111(a)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules establishes an
emission limit for fixed stations operating with digital emissions in
this band expressed as A = 35 + 0.8(P -50) + 10 Log10 B, where A is
attenuation below the mean output power of the transmitter, B is the
authorized bandwidth in megahertz, and P is the percentage by which the
transmitter bandwidth is removed from the carrier frequency.\177\ Under
this provision, attenuation greater than 80 decibels or to an absolute
power of less than -13 dBm/1MHz is not required.\178\ This emission
limit is defined in conducted fashion.\179\ These rules are intended to
support various fixed microwave technologies with conventional antenna
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\177\ 47 CFR 101.111(a)(2)(i).
\178\ Id.
\179\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

67. For most mobile systems, the Commission has generally required
licensees to attenuate their unwanted emission power below the
transmission mean power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10log10(P), or
-13dBm/MHz for any emissions on frequencies outside the licensee's
authorized spectrum.\180\ These requirements take effect at the edges
of the assigned frequencies (e.g., channel, block, or band), and may be
used as a basis for developing further requirements that relate to
transmitter performance by industry standard organizations.\181\ This
limit is applied equally both to base stations and to mobile stations,
and compliance with this limit in existing systems, where access to the
RF port of the antennas is conveniently available, is based on
conducted measurement of transmission power at the output of the
individual RF port.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\180\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 22.359(a), 47 CFR 27.53(a)(1)(i).
\181\ Id.
\182\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

68. In response to the 12.7 NOI, a few commenters suggest specific
criteria for out-of-band emission limits. For example, 5G Americas and
CTIA suggest that new broadband users should be subject to the same
out-of-band emission limits that apply to the existing incumbents in
the band.\183\ T-Mobile and Ericsson suggest that the Commission
consider adopting the same out-of-band emission limit of -13 dBm/MHz
that was adopted in the Spectrum Frontiers proceedings for the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service in the upper mmW spectrum bands.\184\ T-
Mobile argues that this existing out-of-band emission limit is
sufficient to protect services in adjacent bands.\185\ Hispasat,
Oneweb, Dish, and SpaceX suggest that further analysis should be
conducted to determine whether the existing out-of-band emissions limit
is, in fact, sufficient to protect users in adjacent bands.\186\ Due to
the propagation characteristics in the 12.7 GHz band signal attenuation
with distance is higher than at lower frequencies and to overcome those
losses higher gain antennas are typically used, therefore the
Commission believes that deployments in this band are likely to use
integrated multiple element antenna arrays that have characteristics
more similar to antennas in the UMFUS bands than those in the PCS and
AWS bands. As such, measurement of OOBE based on conducted measurements
may be challenging, as was recognized to be the case for the mmW
bands.\187\ In order to achieve higher antenna gain in the compact
format necessary for mobile operation and beam steering necessary for
base stations to track mobile devices, the Commission expects that
mobile and base stations in the 12.7 GHz band, much like the mmW bands,
will have tens of radiating elements with multiple power amplifiers.
Recognizing the potential measurement challenges posed by having a
requirement based on conducted measurements, the Commission proposes to
provide flexibility for the out-of-band emission limits to be measured
either using conducted power or radiated power, and the Commission
seeks comment on this proposal. With lack of RF ports, the emission
measurement needs to be made in radiated fashion, and the antenna gain
must be characterized and subtracted from the radiated measurement if
the emission limit is to be defined in conducted fashion. Ericsson
suggests that in order to support adaptive antennas, either the
conductive power or the total radiated power of any emission outside a
licensee's frequency block shall be -13 dBm/MHz or lower.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\183\ See CTIA Comments at 13; 5G Americas Comments at 2.
\184\ See Ericsson Comments at 11; T-Mobile Comments at 14 &
n.47 (citing Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio
Services, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 32 FCC Rcd 10988, para. 34 (2017); Use of Spectrum Bands
Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, Fourth Report and Order, 33
FCC Rcd 12168, paras. 11-12 (2018)).
\185\ See T-Mobile Reply at 10.
\186\ See OneWeb Comments at 4; DISH Reply at 7; Hispasat Reply
at 13; SpaceX Reply at 6.
\187\ Spectrum Frontiers 1st R&O and FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8117,
para. 297 (discussing OOBE measurement challenges in the mmW band).
\188\ See Ericsson Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

69. In light of the discussion above, the Commission proposes to
adopt a requirement that the conductive power or the total radiated
power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be -13
dBm/MHz or lower and seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission
seeks comment on whether a radiated emission limit of -13 dBm/MHz can
be supported by transmitters operating in the 12.7 GHz band. In this
NPRM, the Commission also proposes to retain a portion of the band
either at the top or bottom edge of the band, or both, to accommodate
re-packed mobile TV pickup operations. From the perspective of
protecting services in adjacent bands from out-of-band emissions and
harmful interference, does one of these alternatives offer more
benefits than the others? Should the out-of-band emissions limits be
different if mobile services are adjacent to incumbent TV pickup
operations, as opposed to being directly adjacent to the 12.7 GHz or
13.25 GHz band edges? Should the out-of-band emissions limits be
applied at the band edge between new flexible use services and BAS, or
is it necessary to define out-of-band emissions limits at

[[Page 43955]]

the edges of the 12.7 and 13.25 GHz band, regardless of any buffer
created by BAS repack bands?
70. The Commission notes that out-of-band emissions and spurious
emissions characterize the overall emission performance of a
transmitter, and that the measurement procedures for spurious emissions
at antenna terminals and the field strength of spurious radiation are
described in the Commission's rules. For bands higher than 1 GHz, for
example PCS and AWS-1, compliance with the emission rule is based on a
resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater, except within the first
1 megahertz.\189\ In the first 1 megahertz bands immediately outside
and adjacent to the channel block, a resolution bandwidth equal to at
least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission
of the transmitter may be employed, provided that the measured power is
integrated over the full required measurement bandwidth.\190\ The
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should apply this
measurement methodology in this band; and if so, whether the 1 MHz
resolution bandwidth is appropriate. Alternatively, what resolution and
frequency offset should be considered to define out-of-band emissions
and spurious emissions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\189\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.53(a)(5).
\190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

71. The Commission request that commenters proposing specific out-
of-band emissions criteria or alternative methods of defining or
measuring the out-of-band emissions provide technical analysis
describing how the proposed radiated emission limits would mitigate the
risk of harmful interference to operations by adjacent users. The
Commission also seeks comment on protection of Federal operations in
adjacent bands in section I.E.7 below (Protection of Federal
Operations).
3. Field Strength Limits/Market Boundaries
72. The Commission's rules for mobile services typically define
field strength limits at the market boundaries in order to prevent
interference or facilitate coordination between licensees in adjacent
markets. For example, the part 27 rules for the Advanced Wireless
Services (AWS) specify that the predicted or measured median field
strength at any location on the geographical border of a licensee's
service area shall not exceed 47 dB[micro]V/m unless the adjacent
affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different field
strength.\191\ The part 30 rules for Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service (UMFUS) specify that the predicted or measured Power Flux
Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz
band, 37-38.6 GHz band, and 38.6-40 GHz bands at any location on the
geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed -77.6
dBm/m2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) unless the adjacent
affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.\192\ The
part 101 rules for the Multipoint Video and Data Distribution Service
(MVDDS) in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, directly adjacent to the band under
consideration here, simply specify that licensees must coordinate their
operations whenever the facilities have optical line-of-sight into
other licensees' areas or are within the same geographic area.\193\
While none of the commenters in response to the 12.7 NOI suggested
specific criteria for field strength limits at the market boundaries,
several commenters do support an exclusive market-based licensing
framework.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\191\ See 47 CFR 27.55(a)(1).
\192\ See 47 CFR 30.204(a).
\193\ See 47 CFR 101.1421(c).
\194\ See CCA Reply at 4; AT&T Comments at 4; CTIA Comments at
2, 6; Ericsson Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

73. In section I.D above (Licensing and Operating Rules) of this
NPRM, the Commission proposes to establish a framework for licensing
this band using exclusive market based licenses with 100 or 50
megahertz channel blocks. Since the Commission proposes to license
geographic areas on an exclusive basis the Commission also proposes to
establish PFD limits at the market boundaries, consistent with the
approach the Commission has used in the past for similar market-based
services. The Commission believes that some criteria are necessary at
market boundaries to manage interference and coordination between
adjacent area licensees. The Commission also believes that given the
wide channel bandwidths and diversity of potential applications that
might be deployed in these bands, any criteria that the Commission
proposes should include a scaling factor for the bandwidth. In the
Spectrum Frontiers proceeding the Commission adopted a PFD of -77.6
dBm/m2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground).\195\ The Commission
believes that deployments in this band are likely to use directional
antennas that have characteristics more similar to those in the UMFUS
bands than those in the PCS and AWS bands. Therefore, the Commission
proposes to adopt a requirement that the predicted or measured Power
Flux Density (PFD) from any Base Station operating in the 12.7 GHz band
at any location on the geographical border of a licensee's service area
shall not exceed -77.6 dBm/m2/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground)
unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a
different PFD. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The
Commission seeks comment on whether a PFD at the market boundary is the
appropriate metric for this band or whether there are advantages to
using a different metric, such as a field strength limit, which is used
for other mobile services under part 27? Is the specific PFD value the
Commission proposes appropriate for this frequency band taking into
consideration factors like the typical receive antenna gain and
receiver characteristics? Would simple coordination criteria, such as
those currently in place for the MVDDS services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band, which require coordination for any facility that has optical line
of sight to an adjacent market be more appropriate? Given the potential
flexible uses of the band, would it be appropriate to have different
interference protection and/or coordination criteria depending on the
types of services (e.g., fixed or mobile) that a licensee deploys?
Commenters who propose alternative metrics or criteria or for
controlling interference or facilitating coordination between licensees
in adjacent markets or adjacent channels within the same market should
describe their proposal in detail and support their proposal with
engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\195\ See Spectrum Frontiers 1st R&O and FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at
8124, para. 312. The Commission notes that the final rule adopted by
the Spectrum Frontiers 1st R&O and FNPRM listed the incorrect value
of -76 dBm/m2/MHz as opposed to the -77.6 dBm/m2/MHz value
referenced in the discussion of the item. For clarity, in the
instant 12.7 GHz NPRM, the Commission is proposing the -77.6 dBm/m2/
MHz value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Antenna Height Limits
74. The Commission proposes not to adopt limits on base station
antenna height at this time because no commenters address the issue in
response to the 12.7 NOI. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Considering what future wireless networks are envisioned to
be, are antenna height thresholds and corresponding power reductions
applicable to certain part 27 bands \196\ appropriate for base or fixed
stations that will be used in the 12.7 GHz band to provide mobile
broadband or for other expanded uses? Conversely, given

[[Page 43956]]

that the Commission is proposing below to control interference at
license boundaries, are separate antenna height restrictions and
corresponding power reductions even necessary? The Commission
tentatively proposes not to adopt antenna height and power limits
similar to those in its part 27 rules for certain bands. However, the
Commission seeks comment on whether power limits based on antenna
height are necessary and/or whether any modifications should be made to
either the height thresholds or the power limits at specific heights
that the Commission has proposed. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether there would there be any benefit in requiring antenna downtilt
for antennas above a certain height? The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any
alternatives. For alternative proposals, commenters should provide
technical support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\196\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.50(b)(1)-(5), (c)(1)-(4) (power and
antenna height limits set forth in Tables 1-4 of Sec. 27.50
applicable to certain 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz bands), (c)(1)-
(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Canada and Mexico Coordination
75. Typically, the Commission's rules provide that fixed and mobile
operations are subject to international agreements with Mexico and
Canada.\197\ The Commission proposes to apply the same limitation to
the newly established rules for the 12.7-13.25 GHz band. Until such
time as any adjusted agreements between the United States, Mexico, and/
or Canada can be agreed to, operations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band must
not cause harmful interference across any international borders of the
United States, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in
force.\198\ Currently, fixed use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz band is covered
by an existing arrangement between the United States and Canada.\199\
The Commission notes that further modification of the proposed rules
might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with
Canada and Mexico regarding the use of this band. The Commission seeks
comment on this issue, including the costs and benefits of
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\197\ See e.g., 47 CFR 27.57, 30.206, 101.147(r)(13),
101.509(d).
\198\ See Agreement Concerning the Coordination and Use of Radio
Frequencies Above Thirty Megacycles per Second, Ca.-U.S., Oct 24,
1962 13 UST 2418, <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30.pdf">https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30.pdf</a>.
\199\ See Agreement Concerning the Coordination and Use of Radio
Frequencies Above Thirty Megacycles per Second, Ca.-U.S., Oct 24,
1962 13 UST 2418, <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30.pdf">https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. General Part 27 Rules
76. There are several additional technical rules applicable to all
part 27 services, including Sec. Sec. 27.51 (equipment authorization),
27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (frequency stability), 27.56 (antennas
structures; air navigation safety), and 27.63 (disturbance of AM
broadcast station antenna patterns).\200\ Given that the Commission
proposes to designate mobile broadband and other expanded uses of the
12.7 GHz band as part 27 services, the Commission proposes to apply
these general part 27 rules to all 12.7 GHz band licenses. Further, the
Commission proposes to apply these rules to licensees that acquire
their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent
the service rules permit such aggregation). The Commission seeks
comment on its proposals, including specific costs and benefits, and
ask commenters to identify any aspects of its general part 27 rules
that should be modified to accommodate the particular characteristics
of the 12.7 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\200\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.51, 27.52, 27.54, 27.56, 27.63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Protection of Federal Operations
a. In-Band
77. Federal operations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band include the Space
Research Service (SRS) (space-to-Earth) and the use of commercial
satellites in the FSS (Earth-to-space). The National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) filed comment in response to the
12.7 NOI raising concerns about interference to SRS operations at
Goldstone, CA ground stations and other Federal systems.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\201\ See NTIA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

78. With respect to Goldstone, NTIA has expressed concern that
ground stations maybe susceptible to interference from commercial
network base stations and handheld mobile stations.\202\ Per footnote
US251 of the Table of Allocation, the 12.75-13.25 GHz band is also
allocated to the space research (deep space) (space-to-Earth) service
for reception only at Goldstone, CA (35[deg] 20' N, 116[deg] 53'
W).\203\ Goldstone is one of three ground station complexes around the
world known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)'s Deep Space Network (DSN) established for commanding, tracking
and monitoring the health and safety of spacecraft at many distant
planetary locales. The DSN is also used to conduct powerful science
investigations that examine the nature of asteroids and the interiors
of planets and moons.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\202\ NTIA Comments at 2.
\203\ See supra note 11 and accompanying text.
\204\ For details, see 12.7 NOI at *3, para. 6 and NASA, What is
the Deep Space Network (Mar. 30, 2020) (NASA's Deep Space Network
``is the largest and most sensitive scientific telecommunications
system in the world.''), <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/services/networks/deep_space_network/about">https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/services/networks/deep_space_network/about</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

79. Additionally, NTIA raised concerns about possible aggregate
interference from a large population of terrestrial emitters to current
and future commercial satellite receivers used by the DoD.\205\ In
light of this, NTIA suggested that the Commission consider a
compatibility analysis between mobile broadband service and commercial
GSO and NGSO satellites.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\205\ NTIA Comments at 2.
\206\ NTIA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

80. NTIA also raised concerns about possible interference to NASA
and NSF passive radio astronomy observatories operating in the 12.7 GHz
band.\207\ The sites at issue include very long baseline interferometry
(VLBI) stations for geodesy and astrometry high accuracy reference
frames.\208\ In its comments, NTIA notes that current coordination
requirements exist for Green Bank Telescope within the National Radio
Quiet Zone (NRQZ) for ground-based transmitters and that repurposing
the 12.7 GHz band to allow terrestrial mobile broadband or other
expanded use may require additional coordination zones and/or new
coordination agreements and updated NRQZ coordination requirements with
the changes beneficial for other U.S. radio astronomy
observatories.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\207\ NTIA Comments at 2.
\208\ NTIA Comments at 2.
\209\ NTIA Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

81. Recognizing the importance of these Federal operations in the
band, and the need to protect them from interference, the Commission
seeks comment on establishing coordination zone and/or other criteria
to protect Goldstone ground stations from possible harmful interference
that might be caused by mobile broadband or other expanded use intended
for the 12.7-13.25 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on how to
define such a coordination zone and on what interference protection
levels should apply at the edge of the coordination zone. The
Commission notes that to protect Goldstone site, Sec. 30.205 of the
Commission's rules defines two coordination zones with contours
`coordinates tables corresponding to 60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP and 75 dBm/100
MHz EIRP respectively. Under Sec. 30.205, all licensees in the 37-38
GHz band located in the coordination zone must

[[Page 43957]]

coordinate with Federal Space Research Service (space to Earth) users
of the band via the NTIA. All licensees within the zone defined by the
60 dBm/100 MHz EIRP must coordinate all operations; licensees operating
within the area between the zones defined by the 60 dBm/100 MHz and 75
dBm/100 MHz EIRP must coordinate all operations if their base station
EIRP is greater than 60 dBm/100 MHz or if their antenna height exceeds
100 meters above ground level; licensees operating outside the zones
defined by the 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP coordinates are not required to
coordinate their operations with NTIA. Could a similar approach, based
on a coordination agreement with NASA, be adopted for mobile broadband
to ensure protection of the DSN?
b. Adjacent Band
82. Federal operations adjacent to the 12.7-13.25 GHz band include
both military and scientific operations in the upper adjacent-band,
13.25-13.75 GHz. This band can be divided into two sub bands, the
13.25-13.4 GHz band and the 13.4-13.75 GHz band, each with different
Federal allocations. The 13.25-13.4 GHz portion is allocated on a
secondary basis for Federal Earth exploration satellite services (EESS)
(active), space research services (SRS) (active), and on a primary
basis for aeronautical radionavigation services (ARNS).\210\ The 13.25-
13.4 GHz portion is allocated for Federal EESS (active), SRS (active),
and radiolocation services on a primary basis and standard frequency
and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space) on a secondary basis.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\210\ NTIA Comments at 3.
\211\ NTIA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

83. In response to the 12.7 NOI, NTIA articulated several concerns
related to adjacent band Federal operations.\212\ First, NTIA noted
that the 13.25-13.4 GHz band is used by the Department of Defense (DoD)
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate airborne
Doppler navigation radar systems used to determine ground speed and
drift angle of an aircraft with respect to the ground.\213\ NTIA
believes those operations may be susceptible to performance degradation
due to interference coming from 12.7-13.25 GHz.\214\ Future Unmanned
aircraft detect-and-avoid safety systems being developed in this band
are also a source of concern for the NTIA.\215\ Although Recommendation
ITU-R M.2008-1 provides characteristics and protection criteria for the
13.25-13.4 GHz band used for airborne Doppler radars,\216\ NTIA
believes that adjacent-band compatibility studies with representative
commercial deployments may be necessary to update Recommendation ITU-R
M.2008-1 to reflect the characteristics of current and future airborne
Doppler navigation radars.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\212\ NTIA Comments at 3-5.
\213\ NTIA Comments at 4.
\214\ NTIA Comments at 4.
\215\ NTIA Comments at 4.
\216\ NTIA Comments at 4.
\217\ NTIA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

84. NTIA also noted that the 13.4-13.75 GHz band is used for DoD
operations of shipborne radars (search radars, tracking radars, and
missile and gun fire-control radars), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite operations in the Joint
Satellite Oceanography Network (JASON), NASA's active remote sensing
(including the future Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT)
mission), Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) and Tracking and Data
Relay Satellite (TDRS) operations, and the NSF continuum and spectral-
line research (including as a calibration aid for the radionavigation
satellite service) operations.\218\ NTIA is concerned that aggregate
interference from mobile base stations and ubiquitous handheld units
may cause interference to NASA and NOAA's satellite systems.\219\
Mobile broadband operations are also believed to be possible source of
interference to military agencies radar systems.\220\ NTIA suggests
that adjacent-band compatibility studies with representative commercial
deployments are necessary to assess any possible degradation of Federal
operations in the 13.4-13.75 GHz band.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\218\ NTIA Comments at 5.
\219\ NTIA Comments at 5.
\220\ NTIA comments at 5.
\221\ NTIA Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

85. The Commission notes that NTIA has set up a Technical
Interchange Group (TIG) as a tool for implementation of electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC) studies between 12.7-13.25 GHz band mobile
broadband or other expanded use and Federal systems.\222\ NTIA TIG
recommendations can be submitted in the record for the NPRM to help
inform the decisions in the Report and Order (R&O). In section I.E.2
above (Out-of-Band Emissions (OOBE) Limits), the Commission proposes to
establish an out-of-band emissions limit of -13dBm/1MHz anywhere
outside a licensee spectrum block and seeks comment on that proposal.
In this section, the Commission seeks comment on whether that same out-
of-band emission limit is adequate to protect Federal operations in the
adjacent bands. If the Commission relocates mobile BAS/CARS operations
into a portion of the 12.7-13.25 GHz band, could creating a buffer
between base/mobile operations and Federal operations alleviate some of
the Federal concerns about interference? Recognizing the importance of
Federal operations in adjacent bands, the Commission seeks comment
generally on how to protect Federal operations in bands adjacent to the
12.7-13.25 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\222\ NTIA Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

86. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all,\223\ including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations \224\ and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\223\ Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended
provides that the FCC ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce
in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service]
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 151.
\224\ The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such
treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of
color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities;
persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality. See E.O. 13985, 86 FR
7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Jan. 20,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis In GN Docket No. 22-352

87. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA),\225\ the Commission has prepared

[[Page 43958]]

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).\226\ In addition, the NPRM and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\225\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\226\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\227\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

88. The NPRM seeks comment on proposals to repurpose some or all of
the 550 megahertz of upper mid-band spectrum between 12.7-13.25 GHz
(12.7 GHz band) for mobile broadband or other expanded use. The
Commission is pursuing the joint goals of making this spectrum
available for new wireless uses while effectively accommodating
incumbent operations in the band. Accordingly, the NPRM seeks comment
on various proposals for transitioning all or part of the band to make
it available for mobile broadband, as well as other expanded uses that
will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's
wireless networks so that they may keep pace with the demands placed
upon them by new technologies and possible new types of services for
consumers and businesses.
89. The NPRM proposes to require new licensees to protect fixed
point-to-point incumbents until a sunset date with the option to
negotiate agreements for accelerated relocations to other bands or
media, and to repack mobile Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Cable
Television Relay Services (CARS) incumbents within a portion(s) of the
band designated for such use. The Commission also proposes to
grandfather the 23 Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations
currently authorized to operate in the band (Earth-to-space) in
accordance with the U.S. Table of Allocations, but otherwise prohibit
all future earth stations of this type. Other earth station operations
in the band could continue to operate on a non-interference,
unprotected basis. Furthermore, the Commission proposes to dismiss any
new space station license applications and new requests for access to
the U.S. market through non-U.S.-licensed space stations, or those
parts of any such applications and requests, that seek to operate in
the 12.7 GHz band. Under these proposals, the band would be unavailable
for new Fixed Service (FS), mobile BAS, or FSS earth stations and would
become available for mobile broadband and other expanded uses. The NPRM
encourages commenters to discuss and quantify the costs and benefits
associated with any of the proposed approaches for transitioning the
band, along with other helpful technical or procedural details. These
actions are another step in the Commission's efforts to close the
digital divide by providing wireless broadband connectivity across the
nation and to secure U.S. leadership in the next generation of wireless
services, including fifth-generation (5G) wireless, 6G, and beyond.

A. Legal Basis

90. The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5,
301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 316 of the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310,
316, and Sec. 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411.

B. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

91. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules, if adopted.\228\ The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' \229\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act.\230\ A small business concern is one that: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\228\ Id. section 603(b)(3).
\229\ Id. section 601(6).
\230\ Id. section 601(3) (incorporating the definition of
``small business concern'' in in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\231\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

92. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities
that could be directly affected herein.\232\ First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500
employees.\233\ These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million
businesses.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\232\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6).
\233\ See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions,
``What is a small business?,'' <a href="https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small-Business-FAQ-2021.pdf">https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small-Business-FAQ-2021.pdf</a>. Nov
2021.
\234\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

93. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
\235\ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of
$50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements
for small exempt organizations.\236\ Nationwide, for tax year 2020,
there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S.
reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and
tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\235\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
\236\ The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less
than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C 601(5) that is used to define a
small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has
been used to estimate the number of small organizations in this
small entity description. See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement
for Small Exempt Organizations--Form 990-N (e-Postcard), ``Who must
file,'' <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard">https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard</a>. The Commission note that the IRS data does not provide
information on whether a small exempt organization is independently
owned and operated or dominant in its field.
\237\ See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract
(E.O. BMF), ``CSV Files by Region,'' <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf">https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf</a>. The IRS Exempt Organization Business Master File (E.O. BMF)
Extract provides information on all registered tax-exempt/non-profit
organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description
was extracted from the IRS E.O. BMF data for businesses for the tax
year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-
Northeast Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas
(175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast Areas (213,840)
that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. This data
does not include information for Puerto Rico.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43959]]

94. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' \238\ U.S.
Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments \239\ indicate
there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of
general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the
United States.\240\ Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose
governments (county,\241\ municipal, and town or township \242\) with
populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose
governments--independent school districts \243\ with enrollment
populations of less than 50,000.\244\ Accordingly, based on the 2017
U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.'' \245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\238\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\239\ See 13 U.S.C. 161. The Census of Governments survey is
conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with
``2'' and ``7''. See also Census of Governments, <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cog/about.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cog/about.html</a>.
\240\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments--
Organization Table 2. Local Governments by Type and State: 2017
[CG1700ORG02], <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html</a>. Local governmental jurisdictions are made up
of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or
township) and special purpose governments (special districts and
independent school districts). See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 Table
Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.
\241\ See id. at tbl.5. County Governments by Population-Size
Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05], <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html</a>. There were 2,105 county
governments with populations less than 50,000. This category does
not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments.
\242\ See id. at tbl.6. Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by
Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG06], <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html</a>.
There were 18,729 municipal and 16,097 town and township governments
with populations less than 50,000.
\243\ See id. at tbl.10. Elementary and Secondary School Systems
by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG10], <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html</a>.
There were 12,040 independent school districts with enrollment
populations less than 50,000. See also tbl.4. Special-Purpose Local
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04],
CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose Local Governments by
State_Census Years 1942 to 2017.
\244\ While the special purpose governments category also
includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census of
Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on
population size for the special purpose governments category.
Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included
in the special purpose governments category.
\245\ This total is derived from the sum of the number of
general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township)
with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of
special purpose governments--independent school districts with
enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017
Census of Governments--Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

95. Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers).
There are several analogous industries with an SBA small business size
standard that are applicable to RF Manufacturers. These industries are
Fixed Microwave Services, Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing,
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. A description of these industries and the SBA small
business size standards are detailed below.
96. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include
common carrier,\246\ private-operational fixed,\247\ and broadcast
auxiliary radio services.\248\ They also include the Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS),\249\ Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90
GHz),\250\ Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS),\251\ the
Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),\252\ 24 GHz Service,\253\
Multiple Address Systems (MAS),\254\ and Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS),\255\ where in some bands
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier
status.\256\ Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
\257\ is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.\258\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.\259\ Of
this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.\260\ Thus,
under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority
of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\246\ See 47 CFR part 101, subparts C and I.
\247\ See id. subparts C and H.
\248\ Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of
title 47 of the Commission's Rules. See 47 CFR part 74. Available to
licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network
entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for
relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.
\249\ See 47 CFR part 30.
\250\ See 47 CFR part 101, subpart Q.
\251\ See id. subpart L.
\252\ See id. subpart G.
\253\ See id.
\254\ See id. subpart O.
\255\ See id. subpart P.
\256\ See 47 CFR 101.533, 101.1017.
\257\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, ``517312
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),'' <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312">https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312</a>.
\258\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22,
NAICS Code 517112).
\259\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United
States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID:
EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, <a href="https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false">https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false</a>.
\260\ Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide
a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA
size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

97. The Commission does not generally track subsequent business
size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust
enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission
does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees
providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
98. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and
television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment).\261\
Examples of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems
manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and
signals (e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic)
manufacturing.\262\ The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies firms having 750 or fewer employees as small.\263\
For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 shows that 321
firms operated for the entire year.\264\ Of that number, 310 firms
operated with fewer than 250

[[Page 43960]]

employees.\265\ Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the
majority of Other Communications Equipment Manufacturers are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\261\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, ``334290
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing,'' <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334290&year=2017&details=334290">https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334290&year=2017&details=334290</a>.
\262\ Id.
\263\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 334290.
\264\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United
States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.:
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334290, <a href="https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334290&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false">https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334290&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false</a>.
\265\ Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide
a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA
size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

99. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.\266\ Examples of products made by
these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.\267\ The SBA small business size standard for
this industry classifies firms having 1,250 employees or less as
small.\268\ U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 10, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.